linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:26:32 -0700
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] PCI: mvebu: switch to using gpiod API

Hi Pali,

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:16:28PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Tuesday 06 September 2022 13:43:01 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > This patch switches the driver away from legacy gpio/of_gpio API to
> > gpiod API, and removes use of of_get_named_gpio_flags() which I want to
> > make private to gpiolib.
> 
> There are many pending pci-mvebu.c patches waiting for review and merge,
> so I would suggest to wait until all other mvebu patches are processed
> and then process this one... longer waiting period :-(

OK, it is not super urgent. OTOH it is a very simple patch :)

> 
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c | 48 +++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > index 1ced73726a26..a54beb8f611c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-mvebu.c
> > @@ -11,14 +11,13 @@
> >  #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> >  #include <linux/clk.h>
> >  #include <linux/delay.h>
> > -#include <linux/gpio.h>
> > +#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
> >  #include <linux/init.h>
> >  #include <linux/mbus.h>
> >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_address.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> > -#include <linux/of_gpio.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_pci.h>
> >  #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> >  
> > @@ -1261,9 +1260,8 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_parse_port(struct mvebu_pcie *pcie,
> >  	struct mvebu_pcie_port *port, struct device_node *child)
> >  {
> >  	struct device *dev = &pcie->pdev->dev;
> > -	enum of_gpio_flags flags;
> >  	u32 slot_power_limit;
> > -	int reset_gpio, ret;
> > +	int ret;
> >  	u32 num_lanes;
> >  
> >  	port->pcie = pcie;
> > @@ -1327,40 +1325,22 @@ static int mvebu_pcie_parse_port(struct mvebu_pcie *pcie,
> >  			 port->name, child);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	reset_gpio = of_get_named_gpio_flags(child, "reset-gpios", 0, &flags);
> > -	if (reset_gpio == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > -		ret = reset_gpio;
> > +	port->reset_name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s-reset",
> > +					  port->name);
> > +	if (!port->reset_name) {
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >  		goto err;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	if (gpio_is_valid(reset_gpio)) {
> > -		unsigned long gpio_flags;
> > -
> > -		port->reset_name = devm_kasprintf(dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s-reset",
> > -						  port->name);
> > -		if (!port->reset_name) {
> > -			ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +	port->reset_gpio = devm_fwnode_gpiod_get(dev, of_fwnode_handle(child),
> > +						 "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH,
> 
> What does it mean that there is a new GPIOD_OUT_HIGH flag passed to the
> devm_fwnode_gpiod_get() function?

This means that we drive the line as "active" as soon as we successfully
grab GPIO. This is the same as we had with devm_gpio_request_one(), but
we do not need to figure out actual polarity.

> 
> > +						 port->name);
> > +	ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(port->reset_gpio);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		if (ret	!= -ENOENT)
> >  			goto err;
> > -		}
> > -
> > -		if (flags & OF_GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW) {
> > -			dev_info(dev, "%pOF: reset gpio is active low\n",
> > -				 child);
> > -			gpio_flags = GPIOF_ACTIVE_LOW |
> > -				     GPIOF_OUT_INIT_LOW;
> > -		} else {
> > -			gpio_flags = GPIOF_OUT_INIT_HIGH;
> > -		}
> > -
> > -		ret = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, reset_gpio, gpio_flags,
> > -					    port->reset_name);
> > -		if (ret) {
> > -			if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > -				goto err;
> > -			goto skip;
> > -		}
> > -
> > -		port->reset_gpio = gpio_to_desc(reset_gpio);
> > +		/* reset gpio is optional */
> > +		port->reset_gpio = NULL;
> 
> Maybe you can also release port->reset_name as it is not used at this
> stage?

OK, I figured it was just a few bytes, but sure, I'll add devm_kfree().

Thanks for the review.

-- 
Dmitry