| 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, 11 Jun 2024 12:39:44 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>
To: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pwm: cros-ec: Don't care about consumers in
.get_state()
Hello Tzung,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 08:50:44AM +0000, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > The get_state() callback is never called (in a visible way) after there
> > is a consumer for a pwm device. The core handles loosing the information
> > about duty_cycle just fine.
>
> ChromeOS EC has no separated "enabled" state, it sees `duty == 0` as
> "disabled"[1]. 1db37f9561b2 ("pwm: cros-ec: Cache duty cycle value")
> caches the value in kernel side so that it can retrieve the original duty
> value even if (struct pwm_state *)->enabled is false.
There is no need to cache, so the following would work:
diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
index 606ccfdaf4cc..2b72468767f4 100644
--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-cros-ec.c
@@ -25,15 +25,6 @@
struct cros_ec_pwm_device {
struct cros_ec_device *ec;
bool use_pwm_type;
- struct cros_ec_pwm *channel;
-};
-
-/**
- * struct cros_ec_pwm - per-PWM driver data
- * @duty_cycle: cached duty cycle
- */
-struct cros_ec_pwm {
- u16 duty_cycle;
};
static inline struct cros_ec_pwm_device *pwm_to_cros_ec_pwm(struct pwm_chip *chip)
@@ -135,37 +126,33 @@ static int cros_ec_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
const struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct cros_ec_pwm_device *ec_pwm = pwm_to_cros_ec_pwm(chip);
- struct cros_ec_pwm *channel = &ec_pwm->channel[pwm->hwpwm];
u16 duty_cycle;
- int ret;
- /* The EC won't let us change the period */
- if (state->period != EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (state->enabled) {
- if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
- return -EINVAL;
+ /* The EC only supports period = EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY */
+ if (state->period < EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY ||
+ state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL)
+ return -EINVAL;
- /*
- * EC doesn't separate the concept of duty cycle and enabled, but
- * kernel does. Translate.
- */
- duty_cycle = state->enabled ? state->duty_cycle : 0;
+ duty_cycle = min(state->duty_cycle, (u64)EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY);
- ret = cros_ec_pwm_set_duty(ec_pwm, pwm->hwpwm, duty_cycle);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * The hardware has no possibility to disable and so save power.
+ * Many consumers expect the PWM to at least stop to oscilate, so just
+ * configure for duty_cycle = 0.
+ */
+ duty_cycle = 0;
+ }
- channel->duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
-
- return 0;
+ return cros_ec_pwm_set_duty(ec_pwm, pwm->hwpwm, duty_cycle);
}
static int cros_ec_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
struct pwm_state *state)
{
struct cros_ec_pwm_device *ec_pwm = pwm_to_cros_ec_pwm(chip);
- struct cros_ec_pwm *channel = &ec_pwm->channel[pwm->hwpwm];
int ret;
ret = cros_ec_pwm_get_duty(ec_pwm->ec, ec_pwm->use_pwm_type, pwm->hwpwm);
@@ -175,23 +162,10 @@ static int cros_ec_pwm_get_state(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
}
state->enabled = (ret > 0);
+ state->duty_cycle = ret;
state->period = EC_PWM_MAX_DUTY;
state->polarity = PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL;
- /*
- * Note that "disabled" and "duty cycle == 0" are treated the same. If
- * the cached duty cycle is not zero, used the cached duty cycle. This
- * ensures that the configured duty cycle is kept across a disable and
- * enable operation and avoids potentially confusing consumers.
- *
- * For the case of the initial hardware readout, channel->duty_cycle
- * will be 0 and the actual duty cycle read from the EC is used.
- */
- if (ret == 0 && channel->duty_cycle > 0)
- state->duty_cycle = channel->duty_cycle;
- else
- state->duty_cycle = ret;
-
return 0;
}
@@ -291,11 +265,6 @@ static int cros_ec_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
chip->ops = &cros_ec_pwm_ops;
chip->of_xlate = cros_ec_pwm_xlate;
- ec_pwm->channel = devm_kcalloc(dev, chip->npwm, sizeof(*ec_pwm->channel),
- GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!ec_pwm->channel)
- return -ENOMEM;
-
dev_dbg(dev, "Probed %u PWMs\n", chip->npwm);
ret = devm_pwmchip_add(dev, chip);
> To make sure I understand, did you mean the original duty value could be less
> important because:
> - We are less caring as it is in a debug context at [2]?
> - At [3], the PWM device is still initializing.
It doesn't really matter that this is about debug or initialisation. The
key here is that the core can handle the PWM using duty_cycle 0 (or
anything else) when it was requested to be disabled.
Best regards
Uwe
> [1]: https://crrev.com/0e16954460a08133b2557150e0897014ea2b9672/common/pwm.c#66
> [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc3/source/drivers/pwm/core.c#L52
> [3]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc3/source/drivers/pwm/core.c#L371
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists