linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] reset: Instantiate reset GPIO controller for shared reset-gpios

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 09:57:00 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, 
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>, Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...cinc.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, 
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, 
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>, 
	Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] reset: Instantiate reset GPIO controller for
 shared reset-gpios

Hi Krzysztof,

something is odd with the addresses on this patch, because neither GPIO
maintainer is on CC nor linux-gpio@...r, and it's such a GPIO-related
patch. We only saw it through side effects making <linux/gpio/driver.h>
optional, as required by this patch.

Please also CC Geert Uytterhoeven, the author of the GPIO aggregator.

i.e. this:
> 2. !GPIOLIB stub:
>    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240125081601.118051-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:53 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:

> Devices sharing a reset GPIO could use the reset framework for
> coordinated handling of that shared GPIO line.  We have several cases of
> such needs, at least for Devicetree-based platforms.
>
> If Devicetree-based device requests a reset line, while "resets"
> Devicetree property is missing but there is a "reset-gpios" one,
> instantiate a new "reset-gpio" platform device which will handle such
> reset line.  This allows seamless handling of such shared reset-gpios
> without need of changing Devicetree binding [1].
>
> To avoid creating multiple "reset-gpio" platform devices, store the
> Devicetree "reset-gpios" GPIO specifiers used for new devices on a
> linked list.  Later such Devicetree GPIO specifier (phandle to GPIO
> controller, GPIO number and GPIO flags) is used to check if reset
> controller for given GPIO was already registered.
>
> If two devices have conflicting "reset-gpios" property, e.g. with
> different ACTIVE_xxx flags, this would allow to spawn two separate
> "reset-gpio" devices, where the second would fail probing on busy GPIO
> request.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YXi5CUCEi7YmNxXM@robh.at.kernel.org/ [1]
> Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
> Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
> Cc: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
(...)

In my naive view, this implements the following:

reset -> virtual "gpio" -> many physical gpios[0..n]

So if there was already a way in the kernel to map one GPIO to
many GPIOs, the framework could just use that with a simple
single GPIO?

See the bindings in:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio-delay.yaml

This is handled by drivers/gpio/gpio-aggregator.c.

This supports a 1-to-1 map: one GPIO in, one GPIO out, same offset.
So if that is extended to support 1-to-many, this problem is solved.

Proposed solution: add a single boolean property such as
aggregate-all-gpios; to the gpio-delay node, making it provide
one single gpio at offset 0 on the consumer side, and refuse any
more consumers.

This will also solve the problem with induced delays on
some GPIO lines as I can see was discussed in the bindings,
the gpio aggregator already supports that, but it would work
fine with a delay being zero as well.

This avoids all the hackery with driver stubs etc as well.

Yours,
Linus Walleij