linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v4 06/10] pwm: dwc: split pci out of core driver

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:38:41 +0300
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ive.com>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        William Salmon <william.salmon@...ive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha <jude.onyenegecha@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 06/10] pwm: dwc: split pci out of core driver

Hi

On 8/17/22 00:14, Ben Dooks wrote:
> Moving towards adding non-pci support for the driver, move the pci
> parts out of the core into their own module. This is partly due to
> the module_driver() code only being allowed once in a module and also
> to avoid a number of #ifdef if we build a single file in a system
> without pci support.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ive.com>
> ---

I quickly tested this on Intel Elkhart and didn't notice any regression. 
A few comments below.

>   drivers/pwm/Kconfig       |  14 +++-
>   drivers/pwm/Makefile      |   1 +
>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-pci.c | 133 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c     | 158 +-------------------------------------
>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h     |  58 ++++++++++++++
>   5 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-pci.c
>   create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> index 3f3c53af4a56..a9f1c554db2b 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
> @@ -175,15 +175,23 @@ config PWM_CROS_EC
>   	  Controller.
>   
>   config PWM_DWC
> -	tristate "DesignWare PWM Controller"
> -	depends on PCI || COMPILE_TEST
> +	tristate "DesignWare PWM Controller core"
>   	depends on HAS_IOMEM
>   	help
> -	  PWM driver for Synopsys DWC PWM Controller attached to a PCI bus.
> +	  PWM driver for Synopsys DWC PWM Controller.
>   
>   	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
>   	  will be called pwm-dwc.
>   
> +config PWM_DWC_PCI
> +	tristate "DesignWare PWM Controller core"

Same text as core part has. How about "DesignWare PWM Controller PCI 
driver"?

> +	depends on PWM_DWC && HAS_IOMEM && PCI
> +	help
> +	  PWM driver for Synopsys DWC PWM Controller attached to a PCI bus.
> +
> +	  To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> +	  will be called pwm-dwc-pci.
> +
>   config PWM_EP93XX
>   	tristate "Cirrus Logic EP93xx PWM support"
>   	depends on ARCH_EP93XX || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> index 7bf1a29f02b8..a70d36623129 100644
> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CLPS711X)	+= pwm-clps711x.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CRC)		+= pwm-crc.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CROS_EC)	+= pwm-cros-ec.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_DWC)		+= pwm-dwc.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_DWC_PCI)	+= pwm-dwc-pci.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_EP93XX)	+= pwm-ep93xx.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_FSL_FTM)	+= pwm-fsl-ftm.o
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_HIBVT)		+= pwm-hibvt.o
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-pci.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-pci.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2213d0e7f3c8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-pci.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * DesignWare PWM Controller driver (PCI part)
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Intel Corporation
> + *
> + * Author: Felipe Balbi (Intel)
> + * Author: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
> + * Author: Raymond Tan <raymond.tan@...el.com>
> + *
> + * Limitations:
> + * - The hardware cannot generate a 0 % or 100 % duty cycle. Both high and low
> + *   periods are one or more input clock periods long.
> + */
> +

I think this is more common limitation rather than PCI part.

> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c
> @@ -1,16 +1,12 @@
>   // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>   /*
> - * DesignWare PWM Controller driver
> + * DesignWare PWM Controller driver core
>    *
>    * Copyright (C) 2018-2020 Intel Corporation
>    *
>    * Author: Felipe Balbi (Intel)
>    * Author: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
>    * Author: Raymond Tan <raymond.tan@...el.com>
> - *
> - * Limitations:
> - * - The hardware cannot generate a 0 % or 100 % duty cycle. Both high and low
> - *   periods are one or more input clock periods long.
>    */

Relates to previous comment, is there reason why this limitation is 
removed from the core part?

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h
> +#define DWC_CLK_PERIOD_NS	10

Perhaps this addition can be removed if patch 7/10 goes before this 
patch? It's anyway specific to PCI part only.