| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <92540bf4-f2de-0aae-d764-ce6edfda1ab1@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 20:54:09 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: aouledameur@...libre.com
Cc: amitk@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, fparent@...libre.com,
hsinyi@...omium.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, michael.kao@...iatek.com,
rafael@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] thermal: mediatek: add another get_temp ops for
thermal sensors
Le 20/07/2022 à 20:18, Amjad Ouled-Ameur a écrit :
> Provide thermal zone to read thermal sensor in the SoC. We can read all the
> thermal sensors value in the SoC by the node /sys/class/thermal/
>
> In mtk_thermal_bank_temperature, return -EAGAIN instead of -EACCESS
> on the first read of sensor that often are bogus values.
> This can avoid following warning on boot:
>
> thermal thermal_zone6: failed to read out thermal zone (-13)
>
> Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Kao <michael.kao-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@...lic.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: default avatarHsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@...lic.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@...lic.gmane.org>
> Tested-by: Amjad Ouled-Ameur <aouledameur-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/mtk_thermal.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/mtk_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/mtk_thermal.c
> index 1dc276f8c4f1..79b14ce1a08d 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/mtk_thermal.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/mtk_thermal.c
> @@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ enum mtk_thermal_version {
>
> struct mtk_thermal;
>
> +struct mtk_thermal_zone {
> + struct mtk_thermal *mt;
> + int id;
> +};
> +
> struct thermal_bank_cfg {
> unsigned int num_sensors;
> const int *sensors;
> @@ -709,6 +714,32 @@ static void mtk_thermal_put_bank(struct mtk_thermal_bank *bank)
> mutex_unlock(&mt->lock);
> }
>
> +static u32 _get_sensor_temp(struct mtk_thermal *mt, int id)
> +{
> + u32 raw;
> + int temp;
> +
> + const struct mtk_thermal_data *conf = mt->conf;
> +
> + raw = readl(mt->thermal_base + conf->msr[id]);
> +
> + if (mt->conf->version == MTK_THERMAL_V1)
> + temp = raw_to_mcelsius_v1(mt, id, raw);
> + else
> + temp = raw_to_mcelsius_v2(mt, id, raw);
> +
> + /*
> + * The first read of a sensor often contains very high bogus
> + * temperature value. Filter these out so that the system does
> + * not immediately shut down.
> + */
> +
> + if (temp > 200000)
> + return -EAGAIN;
This function returns a u32. Is it ok to return -EAGAIN?
There is also 2 spaces here...
> + else
> + return temp;
... and a tab here.
> +}
> +
> /**
> * mtk_thermal_bank_temperature - get the temperature of a bank
> * @bank: The bank
> @@ -721,26 +752,9 @@ static int mtk_thermal_bank_temperature(struct mtk_thermal_bank *bank)
> struct mtk_thermal *mt = bank->mt;
> const struct mtk_thermal_data *conf = mt->conf;
> int i, temp = INT_MIN, max = INT_MIN;
> - u32 raw;
>
> for (i = 0; i < conf->bank_data[bank->id].num_sensors; i++) {
> - raw = readl(mt->thermal_base + conf->msr[i]);
> -
> - if (mt->conf->version == MTK_THERMAL_V1) {
> - temp = raw_to_mcelsius_v1(
> - mt, conf->bank_data[bank->id].sensors[i], raw);
> - } else {
> - temp = raw_to_mcelsius_v2(
> - mt, conf->bank_data[bank->id].sensors[i], raw);
> - }
> -
> - /*
> - * The first read of a sensor often contains very high bogus
> - * temperature value. Filter these out so that the system does
> - * not immediately shut down.
> - */
> - if (temp > 200000)
> - temp = 0;
> + temp = _get_sensor_temp(mt, i);
Is it ok if _get_sensor_temp() returns -EAGAIN?
>
> if (temp > max)
> max = temp;
> @@ -751,7 +765,8 @@ static int mtk_thermal_bank_temperature(struct mtk_thermal_bank *bank)
>
> static int mtk_read_temp(void *data, int *temperature)
> {
> - struct mtk_thermal *mt = data;
> + struct mtk_thermal_zone *tz = data;
> + struct mtk_thermal *mt = tz->mt;
> int i;
> int tempmax = INT_MIN;
>
> @@ -770,10 +785,28 @@ static int mtk_read_temp(void *data, int *temperature)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int mtk_read_sensor_temp(void *data, int *temperature)
> +{
> + struct mtk_thermal_zone *tz = data;
> + struct mtk_thermal *mt = tz->mt;
> + int id = tz->id - 1;
> +
> + if (id < 0)
> + return -EACCES;
2 spaces.
> +
> + *temperature = _get_sensor_temp(mt, id);
If _get_sensor_temp() returns -EAGAIN, should this be propagated to the
caller?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static const struct thermal_zone_of_device_ops mtk_thermal_ops = {
> .get_temp = mtk_read_temp,
> };
>
> +static const struct thermal_zone_of_device_ops mtk_thermal_sensor_ops = {
> + .get_temp = mtk_read_sensor_temp,
> +};
> +
> static void mtk_thermal_init_bank(struct mtk_thermal *mt, int num,
> u32 apmixed_phys_base, u32 auxadc_phys_base,
> int ctrl_id)
> @@ -1072,6 +1105,7 @@ static int mtk_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> u64 auxadc_phys_base, apmixed_phys_base;
> struct thermal_zone_device *tzdev;
> void __iomem *apmixed_base, *auxadc_base;
> + struct mtk_thermal_zone *tz;
>
> mt = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mt), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!mt)
> @@ -1161,11 +1195,29 @@ static int mtk_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mt);
>
> - tzdev = devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&pdev->dev, 0, mt,
> - &mtk_thermal_ops);
> - if (IS_ERR(tzdev)) {
> - ret = PTR_ERR(tzdev);
> - goto err_disable_clk_peri_therm;
> + for (i = 0; i < mt->conf->num_sensors + 1; i++) {
> + tz = kmalloc(sizeof(*tz), GFP_KERNEL);
Should this memory allocation be a devm_kmalloc(), or is this memory
freed at some point by the framework?
(I don't know the thermal_zone API and the patch has no kfree())
CJ
> + if (!tz)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + tz->mt = mt;
> + tz->id = i;
> +
> + tzdev = devm_thermal_zone_of_sensor_register(&pdev->dev, i, tz, (i == 0) ?
> + &mtk_thermal_ops :
> + &mtk_thermal_sensor_ops);
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(tzdev)) {
> + if (PTR_ERR(tzdev) == -ENODEV) {
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev,
> + "sensor %d not registered in thermal zone in dt\n", i);
> + continue;
> + }
> + if (PTR_ERR(tzdev) == -EACCES) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(tzdev);
> + goto err_disable_clk_peri_therm;
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> ret = devm_thermal_add_hwmon_sysfs(tzdev);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists