linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] drivers: mtd: nand: Add qpic

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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:09:24 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
Cc: <andersson@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
 <broonie@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>,
 <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 <richard@....at>, <vigneshr@...com>, <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, <daniel@...rotopia.org>, <arnd@...db.de>,
 <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>, <christophe.kerello@...s.st.com>,
 <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
 <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>,
 <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] drivers: mtd: nand: Add qpic_common API file

Hi,

quic_mdalam@...cinc.com wrote on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 17:46:05 +0530:

> On 3/19/2024 4:13 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi,
> >   
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * qcom_offset_to_nandc_reg() - Get the actual offset
> >>>> + * @regs: pointer to nandc_reg structure
> >>>> + * @offset: register offset
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * This function will reurn the actual offset for qpic controller register
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +__le32 *qcom_offset_to_nandc_reg(struct nandc_regs *regs, int offset)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	switch (offset) {
> >>>> +	case NAND_FLASH_CMD:
> >>>> +		return &regs->cmd;
> >>>> +	case NAND_ADDR0:
> >>>> +		return &regs->addr0;
> >>>> +	case NAND_ADDR1:
> >>>> +		return &regs->addr1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_FLASH_CHIP_SELECT:
> >>>> +		return &regs->chip_sel;
> >>>> +	case NAND_EXEC_CMD:
> >>>> +		return &regs->exec;
> >>>> +	case NAND_FLASH_STATUS:
> >>>> +		return &regs->clrflashstatus;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV0_CFG0:
> >>>> +		return &regs->cfg0;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV0_CFG1:
> >>>> +		return &regs->cfg1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV0_ECC_CFG:
> >>>> +		return &regs->ecc_bch_cfg;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_STATUS:
> >>>> +		return &regs->clrreadstatus;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV_CMD1:
> >>>> +		return &regs->cmd1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV_CMD1_RESTORE:
> >>>> +		return &regs->orig_cmd1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV_CMD_VLD:
> >>>> +		return &regs->vld;
> >>>> +	case NAND_DEV_CMD_VLD_RESTORE:
> >>>> +		return &regs->orig_vld;
> >>>> +	case NAND_EBI2_ECC_BUF_CFG:
> >>>> +		return &regs->ecc_buf_cfg;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_0:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location0;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_1:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_2:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location2;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_3:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location3;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_LAST_CW_0:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location_last0;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_LAST_CW_1:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location_last1;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_LAST_CW_2:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location_last2;
> >>>> +	case NAND_READ_LOCATION_LAST_CW_3:
> >>>> +		return &regs->read_location_last3;  
> >>>
> >>> Why do you need this indirection?  
> >>
> >> This indirection I believe is needed by the write_reg_dma function,
> >> wherein a bunch of registers are modified based on a starting register.
> >> Can I change this in a separate cleanup series as a follow up to this?  
> > 
> > I think it would be cleaner to make the changes I requested first and
> > then make a copy. I understand it is more work on your side, so if you
> > really prefer you can (1) make the copy and then (2) clean it all. But
> > please do it all in this series.  
> Ok
> >   
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand-qpic-common.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand-qpic-common.h
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..aced15866627
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand-qpic-common.h
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
> >>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * QCOM QPIC common APIs header file
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023 Qualcomm Inc.
> >>>> + * Authors:     Md sadre Alam           <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
> >>>> + *		Sricharan R             <quic_srichara@...cinc.com>
> >>>> + *		Varadarajan Narayanan   <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +#ifndef __MTD_NAND_QPIC_COMMON_H__
> >>>> +#define __MTD_NAND_QPIC_COMMON_H__
> >>>> +
> >>>> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/dmaengine.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/dma/qcom_adm.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/dma/qcom_bam_dma.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/mtd/partitions.h>
> >>>> +#include <linux/mtd/rawnand.h>  
> >>>
> >>> You really need this?  
> >> Yes , since some generic structure used here.  
> > 
> > Which ones? If this is a common file, you probably should not.  
>   Since we are using this struct qcom_nand_controller { }
>   for both SPI nand as well as raw nand. In this we are having this
>   struct nand_controller controller member.

Maybe we should not expose qcom_nand_controller at all and just share
the minimum bits which are really common.

Thanks,
Miquèl