| 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, 18 Jul 2023 09:08:48 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Billy Tsai <billy_tsai@...eedtech.com>
Cc: jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, joel@....id.au, andrew@...id.au,
u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, corbet@....net,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
patrick@...cx.xyz
Subject: Re: [v6 3/4] pwm: Add Aspeed ast2600 PWM support
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:18:38AM +0800, Billy Tsai wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-aspeed-ast2600.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-aspeed-ast2600.c
[...]
> +/* PWM Control Register */
> +#define PWM_ASPEED_CTRL (0x00)
[...]
> +#define PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE (0x04)
Guenther already mentioned this, but these parentheses are unnecessary.
> +struct aspeed_pwm_data {
> + struct pwm_chip chip;
> + struct clk *clk;
> + void __iomem *base;
> + struct reset_control *reset;
> + unsigned long clk_source;
The name is a bit unfortunate. Looking at the code this represent the
rate of the parent clock, so something like clk_rate would be more
appropriate.
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct aspeed_pwm_data *
> +aspeed_pwm_chip_to_data(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return container_of(chip, struct aspeed_pwm_data, chip);
> +}
> +
> +static int aspeed_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = chip->dev;
You seem to use this exactly once, in a debug message, so having the
extra local variable seems a bit overkill. No strong objection, though.
> + struct aspeed_pwm_data *priv = aspeed_pwm_chip_to_data(chip);
> + bool polarity, pin_en, clk_en;
A tab seems to have snuck in here.
> + u32 duty_pt, val;
> + u64 div_h, div_l, duty_cycle_period, dividend;
> +
> + val = readl(priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_CTRL);
> + polarity = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_INVERSE, val);
> + pin_en = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_PIN_ENABLE, val);
> + clk_en = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_ENABLE, val);
> + div_h = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_H, val);
> + div_l = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_L, val);
> + val = readl(priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE);
> + duty_pt = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_FALLING_POINT, val);
> + duty_cycle_period = FIELD_GET(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_PERIOD, val);
> +
> + /*
> + * This multiplication doesn't overflow, the upper bound is
> + * 1000000000 * 256 * 256 << 15 = 0x1dcd650000000000
> + */
> + dividend = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (div_l + 1) * (duty_cycle_period + 1)
> + << div_h;
> + state->period = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(dividend, priv->clk_source);
> +
> + if (clk_en && duty_pt) {
> + dividend = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (div_l + 1) * duty_pt
> + << div_h;
> + state->duty_cycle =
> + DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(dividend, priv->clk_source);
> + } else {
> + state->duty_cycle = clk_en ? state->period : 0;
> + }
> + state->polarity = polarity ? PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED : PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
> + state->enabled = pin_en;
> + dev_dbg(dev, "get period: %lldns, duty_cycle: %lldns", state->period,
> + state->duty_cycle);
How likely are you to ever use this again? And how useful will that be?
We've got debugfs support that will show this information and more.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int aspeed_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> + const struct pwm_state *state)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = chip->dev;
> + struct aspeed_pwm_data *priv = aspeed_pwm_chip_to_data(chip);
> + u32 duty_pt;
> + u64 div_h, div_l, divisor, expect_period;
> + bool clk_en;
> +
> + expect_period = min(div64_u64(ULLONG_MAX, (u64)priv->clk_source),
> + state->period);
> + dev_dbg(dev, "expect period: %lldns, duty_cycle: %lldns", expect_period,
> + state->duty_cycle);
> + /*
> + * Pick the smallest value for div_h so that div_l can be the biggest
> + * which results in a finer resolution near the target period value.
> + */
> + divisor = (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (PWM_ASPEED_FIXED_PERIOD + 1) *
> + (FIELD_MAX(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_L) + 1);
> + div_h = order_base_2(DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(priv->clk_source * expect_period, divisor));
> + if (div_h > 0xf)
> + div_h = 0xf;
> +
> + divisor = ((u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (PWM_ASPEED_FIXED_PERIOD + 1)) << div_h;
> + div_l = div64_u64(priv->clk_source * expect_period, divisor);
> +
> + if (div_l == 0)
> + return -ERANGE;
> +
> + div_l -= 1;
> +
> + if (div_l > 255)
> + div_l = 255;
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev, "clk source: %ld div_h %lld, div_l : %lld\n",
> + priv->clk_source, div_h, div_l);
> + /* duty_pt = duty_cycle * (PERIOD + 1) / period */
> + duty_pt = div64_u64(state->duty_cycle * priv->clk_source,
> + (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * (div_l + 1) << div_h);
> + dev_dbg(dev, "duty_cycle = %lld, duty_pt = %d\n", state->duty_cycle,
> + duty_pt);
> +
> + /*
> + * Fixed DUTY_CYCLE_PERIOD to its max value to get a
> + * fine-grained resolution for duty_cycle at the expense of a
> + * coarser period resolution.
> + */
> + writel((readl(priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE) &
> + ~(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_PERIOD)) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_PERIOD,
> + PWM_ASPEED_FIXED_PERIOD),
> + priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE);
This is completely unreadable. Use a temporary variable to split this
up.
> +
> + if (duty_pt == 0) {
> + /* emit inactive level and assert the duty counter reset */
> + clk_en = 0;
> + } else {
> + clk_en = 1;
> + if (duty_pt >= (PWM_ASPEED_FIXED_PERIOD + 1))
> + duty_pt = 0;
> + writel((readl(priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE) &
> + ~(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_RISING_POINT |
> + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_FALLING_POINT)) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE_FALLING_POINT,
> + duty_pt),
> + priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_DUTY_CYCLE);
Same here ...
> + }
> +
> + writel((readl(priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_CTRL) &
> + ~(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_H | PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_L |
> + PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_PIN_ENABLE | PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_ENABLE |
> + PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_INVERSE)) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_H, div_h) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_DIV_L, div_l) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_PIN_ENABLE, state->enabled) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_CLK_ENABLE, clk_en) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PWM_ASPEED_CTRL_INVERSE, state->polarity),
> + priv->base + PWM_ASPEED_CTRL);
... and here.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct pwm_ops aspeed_pwm_ops = {
> + .apply = aspeed_pwm_apply,
> + .get_state = aspeed_pwm_get_state,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +};
> +
> +static void aspeed_pwm_reset_assert(void *data)
> +{
> + struct reset_control *rst = data;
> +
> + reset_control_assert(rst);
> +}
> +
> +static void aspeed_pwm_chip_remove(void *data)
> +{
> + struct pwm_chip *chip = data;
> +
> + pwmchip_remove(chip);
> +}
Erm... no.
> +static int aspeed_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + int ret;
> + struct aspeed_pwm_data *priv;
> +
> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!priv)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + priv->base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->base))
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->base);
> +
> + priv->clk = devm_clk_get_enabled(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->clk))
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->clk),
> + "Couldn't get clock\n");
> + priv->clk_source = clk_get_rate(priv->clk);
> + priv->reset = devm_reset_control_get_shared(dev, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->reset))
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(priv->reset),
> + "Couldn't get reset control\n");
> +
> + ret = reset_control_deassert(priv->reset);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> + "Couldn't deassert reset control\n");
> +
> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, aspeed_pwm_reset_assert,
> + priv->reset);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
So now you need that extra callback that you defined earlier plus these
four lines of code in order to ...
> +
> + priv->chip.dev = dev;
> + priv->chip.ops = &aspeed_pwm_ops;
> + priv->chip.npwm = 1;
> +
> + ret = pwmchip_add(&priv->chip);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to add PWM chip\n");
... avoid calling reset_control_assert() once here? These device-
managed functions are meant to help simplify things, but there's nothing
complicated about it in this driver, so don't do it.
> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, aspeed_pwm_chip_remove,
> + &priv->chip);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Why not just use the driver's .remove() callback? There's nothing here
that would fail afterwards, so this will effectively get called only
during driver removal, so might as well use the idiomatic infrastructure
that exists for this.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id of_pwm_match_table[] = {
That's a suboptimal name. Use a driver-specific prefix.
> + {
> + .compatible = "aspeed,ast2600-pwm",
> + },
> + {},
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_pwm_match_table);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver aspeed_pwm_driver = {
> + .probe = aspeed_pwm_probe,
> + .driver = {
There's another tab that doesn't belong here.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists