linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] i2c: add I2C Address Translator (ATR) support

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]

Message-ID: <79331f60-0849-9d5a-822a-987df01a4b96@ideasonboard.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:22:26 +0200
From:   Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To:     Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Matti Vaittinen <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michael Tretter <m.tretter@...gutronix.de>,
        Shawn Tu <shawnx.tu@...el.com>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
        Mike Pagano <mpagano@...too.org>,
        Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
        Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] i2c: add I2C Address Translator (ATR) support

On 19/01/2023 13:35, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Tomi, Andy,
> 
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 12:09:57 +0200
> Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 19/01/2023 10:21, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> +void i2c_atr_set_driver_data(struct i2c_atr *atr, void *data)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	atr->priv = data;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(i2c_atr_set_driver_data, I2C_ATR);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +void *i2c_atr_get_driver_data(struct i2c_atr *atr)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +	return atr->priv;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(i2c_atr_get_driver_data, I2C_ATR);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to be sure: Is it really _driver_ data and not _device instance_ data?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is device instance data indeed. I don't remember why this got
>>>>> changed, but in v3 it was i2c_atr_set_clientdata().
>>>>
>>>> It's me who was and is against calling it clientdata due to possible
>>>> confusion with i2c_set/get_clientdata() that is about *driver data*.
>>>> I missed that time the fact that this is about device instance data.
>>>> I dunno which name would be better in this case, i2c_atr_set/get_client_priv() ?
>>>
>>> Not sure I'm following you here. The i2c_atr_set_clientdata() name was
>>> given for similarity with i2c_set_clientdata(). The latter wraps
>>> dev_set_drvdata(), which sets `struct device`->driver_data. There is
>>> one driver_data per each `struct device` instance, not per each driver.
>>> The same goes for i2c_atr_set_driver_data(): there is one priv pointer
>>> per each `struct i2c_atr` instance.
>>
>> I'm a bit confused. What is "driver data" and what is "device instance
>> data"?
>>
>> This deals with the driver's private data, where the "driver" is the
>> owner/creator of the i2c-atr. The i2c-atr itself doesn't have a device
>> (it's kind of part of the owner's device), and there's no driver in
>> i2c-atr.c
>>
>> I don't like "client" here, as it reminds me of i2c_client (especially
>> as we're in i2c context).
>>
>> What about i2c_atr_set_user_data()? Or "owner_data"?
> 
> Ah, only now I got the point Andy made initially about "client" not
> being an appropriate word.
> 
> In i2c we have:
> 
>    i2c_set_clientdata(struct i2c_client *client, void *data)
>            ^^^^^^~~~~            ^^^^^^                ~~~~
> 
> so "client" clearly makes sense there, now here.

Isn't that also used by the i2c_client? A driver which handles an i2c 
device is the "i2c client", in a sense?

> The same logic applied here would lead to:
> 
>    i2c_atr_set_atrdata(struct i2c_atr *atr, void *data)
>                ^^^~~~~            ^^^             ~~~~
> 
> which makes sense but it is a ugly IMO.

Here, I think, there's a bit of a difference to the i2c_client case, as 
we have a separate component for the i2c-atr. Although I guess one can 
argue that the top level driver is the ATR driver, as it handles the HW, 
and i2c-atr.c is just a set of helpers, so... I don't know =).

> So I think i2c_atr_get_driver_data() in this v7 makes sense, it's to
> set the data that the ATR driver instance needs.
> 
> This is coherent with logic in spi/spi.h:
> 
>    spi_set_drvdata(struct spi_device *spi, void *data)
> 
> except for the abbreviation ("_drvdata" vs "_driver_data").
> 
> Andy, Tomi, would i2c_atr_set_drvdata() be OK for you, just like SPI
> does?

Well, I'm good with the current i2c_atr_set_driver_data(). If all agrees 
that it's "driver data", I'd rather keep it like that. I find this 
"drvdata" style very odd. Why no underscore between drv and data? Why 
abbreviate drv, it doesn't really help anything here?

That said, I'm also fine with i2c_atr_set_drvdata if that's the popular 
opinion (between the three of us, so far ;).

  Tomi