linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvmem: add explicit config option to read OF fixed cells

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: <101a5bdf-870a-a1bb-954d-1d675ecad5a7@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:29:48 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        Vincent Shih <vincent.sunplus@...il.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
        Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        asahi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmem: add explicit config option to read OF fixed cells

On 21.02.2023 22:38, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:50 PM Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
>>
>> NVMEM subsystem looks for fixed NVMEM cells (specified in DT) by
>> default. This behaviour made sense in early days before adding support
>> for dynamic cells.
>>
>> With every new supported NVMEM device with dynamic cells current
>> behaviour becomes non-optimal. It results in unneeded iterating over DT
>> nodes and may result in false discovery of cells (depending on used DT
>> properties).
> I am not familiar with the recent changes around dynamic cells.
> Is there any discussion/summary that I can read to get up to speed?

Some NVMEM devices don't store specific data at hardcoded offsets. For
such devices we have drivers (to become: layouts) that parse their magic
content. They discover cells and register them and provide matching with
proper DT nodes.

For bindings see:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=084973e944bec21804f8afb0515b25434438699a
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a607a850ba1fa966cbb035544c1588e24a6307df

For example driver see:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=6e977eaa8280e957b87904b536661550f2a6b3e8
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=207775f7e17b8fd0426a2ac4a5b81e4e1d71849e

For usage see:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c8442f0fb09ca3d842b9b23d1d0650f649fd10f8


> My main thought is: if there are many "fixed OF cells" implementations
> and only a few "dynamic" ones - does it make sense to flip the logic
> and introduce a new "use_dynamic_of_cells" flag instead?

The problem is that there are more cases than just two. We can have:
1. No cells at all
2. Fixed cells in DT
3. Dynamic cells with references in DT
4. Driver specified cells (specified within config)
5. Cells defined in a global table

So we need to reference DT cells explicitly (we can't just confirm /
deny *dynamic* cells).

Another solution would be to have "no_fixed_of_cells" but:

1. Personally I think negation is less clear / easy to follow

2. There may be actually more drivers with no fixed cells.
I think I modified 18 drivers. It seems devm_nvmem_register() is
referenced in 44 places. Few of them may be not actual users but it
still seems to be about equal.