linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 12/14] serial: liteuart: add IRQ support for the RX path

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]

Message-ID: <7b5042be-8061-d4f4-43b5-75a5ad6dbcb0@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 18:21:00 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@...il.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-serial <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, kgugala@...micro.com,
        mholenko@...micro.com, joel@....id.au,
        david.abdurachmanov@...il.com, florent@...oy-digital.fr,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/14] serial: liteuart: add IRQ support for the RX
 path

On Tue, 15 Nov 2022, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 06:00:11PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, Gabriel Somlo wrote:
> > 
> > > Add support for IRQ-driven RX. Support for the TX path will be added
> > > in a separate commit.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Somlo <gsomlo@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/tty/serial/liteuart.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/liteuart.c b/drivers/tty/serial/liteuart.c
> > > index cf1ce597b45e..e30adb30277f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/liteuart.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/liteuart.c
> > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > >   */
> > >  
> > >  #include <linux/console.h>
> > > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > >  #include <linux/litex.h>
> > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > > @@ -130,13 +131,29 @@ static void liteuart_rx_chars(struct uart_port *port)
> > >  	tty_flip_buffer_push(&port->state->port);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static irqreturn_t liteuart_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct liteuart_port *uart = data;
> > > +	struct uart_port *port = &uart->port;
> > > +	u8 isr = litex_read8(port->membase + OFF_EV_PENDING);
> > > +
> > > +	/* for now, only rx path triggers interrupts */
> > 
> > Please don't add comment like this at all when your series removes it in a 
> > later patch.
> 
> OK, I will remove it in v4.
> 
> > > +	isr &= EV_RX;
> > > +
> > > +	spin_lock(&port->lock);
> > > +	if (isr & EV_RX)
> > > +		liteuart_rx_chars(port);
> > > +	spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> > > +
> > > +	return IRQ_RETVAL(isr);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static void liteuart_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct liteuart_port *uart = from_timer(uart, t, timer);
> > >  	struct uart_port *port = &uart->port;
> > >  
> > > -	liteuart_rx_chars(port);
> > > -
> > > +	liteuart_interrupt(0, port);
> > >  	mod_timer(&uart->timer, jiffies + uart_poll_timeout(port));
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -162,19 +179,42 @@ static unsigned int liteuart_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port)
> > >  static int liteuart_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct liteuart_port *uart = to_liteuart_port(port);
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +	u8 irq_mask = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	/* disable events */
> > > -	litex_write8(port->membase + OFF_EV_ENABLE, 0);
> > > +	if (port->irq) {
> > > +		ret = request_irq(port->irq, liteuart_interrupt, 0,
> > > +				  KBUILD_MODNAME, uart);
> > > +		if (ret == 0) {
> > > +			/* only enable rx interrupts at this time */
> > 
> > This comment seems pretty useless. Your code says very much the same.
> 
> The comment was meant to let the reader know that the code is doing it
> *intentionally* (rather than forgetting to enable tx irqs by mistake).
> But I'm OK with removing this comment in v4 as well if you think
> that's an overly paranoid and redundant thing to do... :)

I see. Reading the other comment first caused me to misinterpret this one 
to mean that only RX interrupts are implemented.

Maybe if you change "at this time" to "at startup" it would make it more 
obvious.

-- 
 i.