linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] pwm: dwc: split pci out of core driver

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 08:07:10 +0100
From:   Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ive.com>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
        William Salmon <william.salmon@...ive.com>,
        Jude Onyenegecha <jude.onyenegecha@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] pwm: dwc: split pci out of core driver

On 15/07/2023 20:28, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 06:14:53PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Moving towards adding non-pci support for the driver, move the pci
>> parts out of the core into their own module. This is partly due to
>> the module_driver() code only being allowed once in a module and also
>> to avoid a number of #ifdef if we build a single file in a system
>> without pci support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ive.com>
>> ---
>> v8:
>>   - add module namespace
>>   - remove compile-test for pci case, doesn't make sense
>>   - fix makefile, missed config symbol changes
>> v7:
>>   - re-order kconfig to make dwc core be selected by PCI driver
>> v6:
>>   - put DWC_PERIOD_NS back to avoid bisect issues
>> v4:
>>   - removed DWC_PERIOD_NS as not needed
>> ---
>>   drivers/pwm/Kconfig        |  14 ++-
>>   drivers/pwm/Makefile       |   1 +
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.c      | 197 +------------------------------------
>>   drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h      |  60 +++++++++++
>>   5 files changed, 253 insertions(+), 195 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc-core.c
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/pwm/pwm-dwc.h
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> index 8df861b1f4a3..7c54cdcb97a0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Kconfig
>> @@ -186,9 +186,19 @@ config PWM_CROS_EC
>>   	  PWM driver for exposing a PWM attached to the ChromeOS Embedded
>>   	  Controller.
>>   
>> +config PWM_DWC_CORE
>> +	tristate
>> +	depends on HAS_IOMEM
>> +	help
>> +	  PWM driver for Synopsys DWC PWM Controller.
>> +
>> +	  To compile this driver as a module, build the dependecies as
>> +	  modules, this will be called pwm-dwc-core.
>> +
>>   config PWM_DWC
>> -	tristate "DesignWare PWM Controller"
>> -	depends on PCI
>> +	tristate "DesignWare PWM Controller (PCI bus)"
>> +	depends on HAS_IOMEM && PCI
>> +	select PWM_DWC_CORE
>>   	help
>>   	  PWM driver for Synopsys DWC PWM Controller attached to a PCI bus.
>>   
>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/Makefile b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> index 19899b912e00..de3ed77e8d7c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/Makefile
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CLK)		+= pwm-clk.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CLPS711X)	+= pwm-clps711x.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CRC)		+= pwm-crc.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_CROS_EC)	+= pwm-cros-ec.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_DWC_CORE)	+= pwm-dwc-core.o
>>   obj-$(CONFIG_PWM_DWC)		+= pwm-dwc.o
> 
> Would it make sense to call this pwm-dwc-pci.o? And the symbol
> CONFIG_PWM_DWC_PCI? (The latter would break make oldconfig. Hmm, I'm
> unsure myself.)

i left the pci as the pwm-dwc so that anyone moving up and using
this as a module won't have to change config or their module loading
if they're not autoloading modules.

> I didn't check all the details, but assuming that this is a split
> without further changes it looks ok to me.
> 
> Best regards
> Uwe
> 

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html