linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR

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, 2 Sep 2022 10:21:21 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/8] gpiolib: Get rid of ARCH_NR_GPIOS



Le 31/08/2022 à 22:55, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 30/08/2022 à 22:18, Andy Shevchenko a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 7:19 PM Christophe Leroy
>>> <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since commit 14e85c0e69d5 ("gpio: remove gpio_descs global array")
>>>> there is no limitation on the number of GPIOs that can be allocated
>>>> in the system since the allocation is fully dynamic.
>>>>
>>>> ARCH_NR_GPIOS is today only used in order to provide downwards
>>>> gpiobase allocation from that value, while static allocation is
>>>> performed upwards from 0. However that has the disadvantage of
>>>> limiting the number of GPIOs that can be registered in the system.
>>>>
>>>> To overcome this limitation without requiring each and every
>>>> platform to provide its 'best-guess' maximum number, rework the
>>>> allocation to allocate upwards, allowing approx 2 millions of
>>>> GPIOs.
>>>>
>>>> In order to still allow static allocation for legacy drivers, define
>>>> GPIO_DYNAMIC_BASE with the value 256 as the start for dynamic
>>>> allocation.
>>>
>>> Not sure about 256, but I understand that this can only be the best guess.
>>>
>>
>> Well, it's already just a precaution. Linus W's expectation is that
>> static ones are allocated at first, they should already be allocated
>> when we start doing dynamic allocations so he was even thinking that we
>> could have started at 0 already.
>>
>> But I can start higher if you think it is safer, maybe at 512 which is
>> the default ARCH_NR_GPIOS today.
> 
> FWIW, I went through the drivers that set the base to a value other than
> zero or -1, to see what they use:
> 

> arch/arm/mach-s3c/gpio-samsung.c:			.base	= S3C2410_GPM(0), // 384

> arch/arm/mach-s3c/mach-h1940.c:	.base			= H1940_LATCH_GPIO(0), // 384 + 22

> drivers/mfd/asic3.c:	asic->gpio.base = pdata->gpio_base; // 300 + 100
> drivers/mfd/htc-i2cpld.c:	gpio_chip->base            = plat_chip_data->gpio_in_base; // 192 + 16 + 8*8


Ok, so 256 is not enough, have to go to 512.

Christophe