| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 12:18:49 +0530
From: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v6 1/5] hwmon: (pmbus/core): Add interrupt support
Hi Guenter,
On 29-12-2022 08:10 pm, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 09:07:11AM +0100, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> From: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
>>
>> Implement PMBUS irq handler.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@...ements.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <Naresh.Solanki@...ements.com>
>
> $ scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict index.html
> CHECK: Blank lines aren't necessary after an open brace '{'
> #131: FILE: drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c:3088:
> + for (i = 0; i < data->info->pages; i++) {
> +
>
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> #183: FILE: drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c:3140:
> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, pmbus_fault_handler,
> + 0, "pmbus-irq", data);
>
> CHECK: Please use a blank line after function/struct/union/enum declarations
> #197: FILE: drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c:3154:
> }
> +static int pmbus_irq_setup(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_data *data)
>
> total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 checks, 109 lines checked
>
> NOTE: For some of the reported defects, checkpatch may be able to
> mechanically convert to the typical style using --fix or --fix-inplace.
>
> index.html has style problems, please review.
>
> Please run checkpatch --strict on your patches.
> Also see Documentation/hwmon/submitting-patches.rst.
I will take care of these errors in the updated version.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h | 2 +-
>> drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>
>> base-commit: 364ffd2537c44cb6914ff5669153f4a86fffad29
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
>> index 10fb17879f8e..6b2e6cf93b19 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus.h
>> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ enum pmbus_regs {
>>
>> PMBUS_CAPABILITY = 0x19,
>> PMBUS_QUERY = 0x1A,
>> -
>> + PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK = 0x1B,
>> PMBUS_VOUT_MODE = 0x20,
>> PMBUS_VOUT_COMMAND = 0x21,
>> PMBUS_VOUT_TRIM = 0x22,
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> index 95e95783972a..244fd2597252 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pmbus/pmbus_core.c
>> @@ -3072,11 +3072,89 @@ static int pmbus_regulator_register(struct pmbus_data *data)
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +
>> +static int pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(struct i2c_client *client, u8 page, u8 reg, u8 val)
>> +{
>> + return pmbus_write_word_data(client, page, PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK, reg | (val << 8));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t pmbus_fault_handler(int irq, void *pdata)
>> +{
>> + struct pmbus_data *data = pdata;
>> + struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(data->dev);
>> + int i, status;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < data->info->pages; i++) {
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> + status = pmbus_read_status_word(client, i);
>> + if (status < 0) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + return status;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (status & ~(PB_STATUS_OFF | PB_STATUS_BUSY | PB_STATUS_POWER_GOOD_N))
>> + pmbus_clear_fault_page(client, i);
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int pmbus_irq_setup(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct device *dev = &client->dev;
>> + const struct pmbus_regulator_status_category *cat;
>> + const struct pmbus_regulator_status_assoc *bit;
>> + int i, j, err, ret, func;
>> + u8 mask;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < data->info->pages; i++) {
>> + func = data->info->func[i];
>> +
>> + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(pmbus_regulator_flag_map); j++) {
>> + cat = &pmbus_regulator_flag_map[j];
>> + if (!(func & cat->func))
>> + continue;
>> + mask = 0;
>> + for (bit = cat->bits; bit->pflag; bit++)
>> + mask |= bit->pflag;
>> +
>> + err = pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, cat->reg, ~mask);
>> + if (err)
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to set smbalert for reg 0x%02x\n", cat->reg);
>
> This concerns me. It might mean that the chip does not support
> PMBUS_SMBALERT_MASK. If so, there would be lots of error messages.
After going through the PMBus specification, it appears that this should
not be an issue unless there is a violation of the specification.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, PMBUS_STATUS_CML, 0xff);
>> + pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, PMBUS_STATUS_OTHER, 0xff);
>> + pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, PMBUS_STATUS_MFR_SPECIFIC, 0xff);
>
> Why check the return value from pmbus_write_smbalert_mask above but not here ?
Thank you for pointing out the oversight. I will make sure to include an
error check at this point.
>
>> + if (data->info->func[i] & PMBUS_HAVE_FAN12)
>> + pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, PMBUS_STATUS_FAN_12, 0xff);
>> + if (data->info->func[i] & PMBUS_HAVE_FAN34)
>> + pmbus_write_smbalert_mask(client, i, PMBUS_STATUS_FAN_34, 0xff);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Register notifiers - can fail if IRQ is not given */
>
> The comment does not make sense. pmbus_irq_setup() is not called
> if the interrupt "is not given".
Yes. The comment here is not relevant and will be removed.
>
>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, pmbus_fault_handler,
>> + 0, "pmbus-irq", data);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_warn(dev, "IRQ disabled %d\n", ret);
>
> This is not a warning, it is an error.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will make sure to update
the code to reflect that this is an error.
>
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> #else
>
> This is still in regulator code. I said several times that this is not
> acceptable.
Thank you for pointing out the mistake. I will make sure to correct this
in the next revision.
>
>> static int pmbus_regulator_register(struct pmbus_data *data)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>> +static int pmbus_irq_setup(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_data *data)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> #endif
>>
>> static struct dentry *pmbus_debugfs_dir; /* pmbus debugfs directory */
>> @@ -3441,6 +3519,12 @@ int pmbus_do_probe(struct i2c_client *client, struct pmbus_driver_info *info)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> + if (client->irq > 0) {
>> + ret = pmbus_irq_setup(client, data);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> ret = pmbus_init_debugfs(client, data);
>> if (ret)
>> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to register debugfs\n");
Thanks,
Naresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists