linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] irqchip/renesas-rzg2l: Add support for RZ/Five SoC

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: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 18:36:20 +0000
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, 
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>, 
	Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] irqchip/renesas-rzg2l: Add support for RZ/Five SoC

Hi Geert,

Thank you for the review.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:38 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:16 PM Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...ilcom> wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> >
> > The IX45 block has additional mask registers (NMSK/IMSK/TMSK) as compared
> > to the RZ/G2L (family) SoC.
> >
> > Introduce masking/unmasking support for IRQ and TINT interrupts in IRQC
> > controller driver. Two new registers, IMSK and TMSK, are defined to
> > handle masking on RZ/Five SoC. The implementation utilizes a new data
> > structure, `struct rzg2l_irqc_data`, to determine mask support for a
> > specific controller instance.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> > @@ -66,15 +68,25 @@ struct rzg2l_irqc_reg_cache {
> >         u32     titsr[2];
> >  };
> >
> > +/**
> > + * struct rzg2l_irqc_data - OF data structure
> > + * @mask_supported: Indicates if mask registers are available
> > + */
> > +struct rzg2l_irqc_data {
>
> This structure has the same name as the single static struct
> rzg2l_irqc_priv instance, which is confusing.
>
Agreed, I will rename it to rzg2l_irqc_of_data

> > +       bool    mask_supported;
> > +};
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * struct rzg2l_irqc_priv - IRQ controller private data structure
> >   * @base:      Controller's base address
> > + * @data:      OF data pointer
> >   * @fwspec:    IRQ firmware specific data
> >   * @lock:      Lock to serialize access to hardware registers
> >   * @cache:     Registers cache for suspend/resume
> >   */
> >  static struct rzg2l_irqc_priv {
> >         void __iomem                    *base;
> > +       const struct rzg2l_irqc_data    *data;
>
> Replacing this by a bool would avoid a pointer dereference in each user,
> and allows you to make rzg2l_irqc_data etc. __initconst.
>
Do you mean just add "bool mask_supported" here and get rid of struct
rzg2l_irqc_data ? Can you please elaborate here..

> >         struct irq_fwspec               fwspec[IRQC_NUM_IRQ];
> >         raw_spinlock_t                  lock;
> >         struct rzg2l_irqc_reg_cache     cache;
>
> > @@ -371,9 +475,23 @@ static int rzg2l_irqc_parse_interrupts(struct rzg2l_irqc_priv *priv,
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static const struct rzg2l_irqc_data rzfive_irqc_data = {
> > +       .mask_supported = true,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct rzg2l_irqc_data rzg2l_irqc_default_data = {
> > +       .mask_supported = false,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id rzg2l_irqc_matches[] = {
> > +       { .compatible = "renesas,r9a07g043f-irqc", .data = &rzfive_irqc_data },
> > +       { }
> > +};
> > +
> >  static int rzg2l_irqc_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> >  {
> >         struct irq_domain *irq_domain, *parent_domain;
> > +       const struct of_device_id *match;
> >         struct platform_device *pdev;
> >         struct reset_control *resetn;
> >         int ret;
> > @@ -392,6 +510,12 @@ static int rzg2l_irqc_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> >         if (!rzg2l_irqc_data)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > +       match = of_match_node(rzg2l_irqc_matches, node);
> > +       if (match)
> > +               rzg2l_irqc_data->data = match->data;
> > +       else
> > +               rzg2l_irqc_data->data = &rzg2l_irqc_default_data;
>
> Instead of matching a second time, I'd rather add a second
> IRQCHIP_MATCH() entry with a different init function, passing the
> actual rzg2l_irqc_data pointer.
>
OK, or rather just pass true/false instead of rzg2l_irqc_of_data pointer.?

Cheers,
Prabhakar