linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: add support for pinctrl for recovery

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: <97d62909-551b-4abd-a743-5be09e617665@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:07:33 +0300
From:   Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Yann Sionneau <yann@...nneau.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Dabros <jsd@...ihalf.com>,
        Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...ray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i2c: designware: add support for pinctrl for recovery

Hi

On 8/16/23 12:50, Yann Sionneau wrote:
> From: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...ray.eu>
> 
> Currently if the SoC needs pinctrl to switch the SCL and SDA
> from the I2C function to GPIO function, the recovery won't work.
> 
> scl-gpio = <>;
> sda-gpio = <>;
> 
> Are not enough for some SoCs to have a working recovery.
> Some need:
> 
> scl-gpio = <>;
> sda-gpio = <>;
> pinctrl-names = "default", "recovery";
> pinctrl-0 = <&i2c_pins_hw>;
> pinctrl-1 = <&i2c_pins_gpio>;
> 
> The driver was not filling rinfo->pinctrl with the device node
> pinctrl data which is needed by generic recovery code.
> 
> Tested-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...ray.eu>
> Signed-off-by: Yann Sionneau <ysionneau@...ray.eu>

Tested-by from author is needless. Expectation is that author has tested 
the patch while not always true :-)

> @@ -905,6 +906,15 @@ static int i2c_dw_init_recovery_info(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
>   		return PTR_ERR(gpio);
>   	rinfo->sda_gpiod = gpio;
>   
> +	rinfo->pinctrl = devm_pinctrl_get(dev->dev);
> +	if (IS_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl)) {
> +		if (PTR_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> +			return PTR_ERR(rinfo->pinctrl);
> +
> +		rinfo->pinctrl = NULL;
> +		dev_info(dev->dev, "can't get pinctrl, bus recovery might not work\n");

I think dev_dbg() suits better here or is it needed at all? End user may 
not be able to do anything when sees this in dmesg. I.e. more like 
development time dev_dbg() information.

Does i2c-core-base.c: i2c_gpio_init_pinctrl_recovery() already do 
dev_info() print when pinctrl & GPIO are set properly making above also 
kind of needless?

Jarkko