| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <xrr66tlsrqdpasnnz5dmburbotoftrsipnvsfubfyveykhqxob@rqhr5uzfo5fn>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 22:27:39 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc: robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] i2c: Add driver for the RTL9300 I2C controller
Hi Chris,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 11:29:29AM GMT, Chris Packham wrote:
> Add support for the I2C controller on the RTL9300 SoC. This is based on
> the openwrt implementation[1] but cleaned up to make use of the regmap
> APIs.
Can you please add a few more words to describe the device?
> [1] - https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=blob;f=target/linux/realtek/files-5.15/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rtl9300.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
...
> +#define I2C_MST_CTRL1 0x0
> +#define MEM_ADDR_OFS 8
> +#define MEM_ADDR_MASK 0xffffff
> +#define SDA_OUT_SEL_OFS 4
> +#define SDA_OUT_SEL_MASK 0x7
> +#define GPIO_SCL_SEL BIT(3)
> +#define RWOP BIT(2)
> +#define I2C_FAIL BIT(1)
> +#define I2C_TRIG BIT(0)
> +#define I2C_MST_CTRL2 0x4
> +#define RD_MODE BIT(15)
> +#define DEV_ADDR_OFS 8
> +#define DEV_ADDR_MASK 0x7f
> +#define DATA_WIDTH_OFS 4
> +#define DATA_WIDTH_MASK 0xf
> +#define MEM_ADDR_WIDTH_OFS 2
> +#define MEM_ADDR_WIDTH_MASK 0x3
can we have these masked already shifted? You could use
GENMASK().
> +#define SCL_FREQ_OFS 0
> +#define SCL_FREQ_MASK 0x3
> +#define I2C_MST_DATA_WORD0 0x8
> +#define I2C_MST_DATA_WORD1 0xc
> +#define I2C_MST_DATA_WORD2 0x10
> +#define I2C_MST_DATA_WORD3 0x14
Can we use a prefix for all these defines?
> +
> +#define RTL9300_I2C_STD_FREQ 0
> +#define RTL9300_I2C_FAST_FREQ 1
This can also be an enum.
> +
> +DEFINE_MUTEX(i2c_lock);
...
> +static int rtl9300_i2c_write(struct rtl9300_i2c *i2c, u8 *buf, int len)
> +{
> + u32 vals[4] = {};
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + if (len > 16)
> + return -EIO;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> + if (i % 4 == 0)
> + vals[i/4] = 0;
> + vals[i/4] <<= 8;
> + vals[i/4] |= buf[i];
> + }
> +
> + ret = regmap_bulk_write(i2c->regmap, i2c->i2c_mst_ofs + I2C_MST_DATA_WORD0,
> + vals, ARRAY_SIZE(vals));
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return len;
why returning "len"? And in any case this is ignored.
> +}
> +
> +static int rtl9300_i2c_writel(struct rtl9300_i2c *i2c, u32 data)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = regmap_write(i2c->regmap, i2c->i2c_mst_ofs + I2C_MST_DATA_WORD0, data);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
return regmap_write(...) ?
In any case, the returned value of these functions is completely
ignored, not even printed. Should we either:
- condier the return value in the _xfer() functions
or
- make all these functions void?
> +}
> +
> +static int rtl9300_i2c_execute_xfer(struct rtl9300_i2c *i2c, char read_write,
> + int size, union i2c_smbus_data *data, int len)
> +{
> + u32 val, mask;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (read_write == I2C_SMBUS_READ)
> + val = 0;
> + else
> + val = RWOP;
> + mask = RWOP;
> +
> + val |= I2C_TRIG;
> + mask |= I2C_TRIG;
how about "mask = RWOP | I2C_TRIG" to make it in one line?
Also val can be simplified as:
val = I2C_TRIG;
if (read_write == I2C_SMBUS_WRITE)
val |= RWOP;
Not a binding commeent, as you wish.
> +
> + ret = regmap_update_bits(i2c->regmap, i2c->i2c_mst_ofs + I2C_MST_CTRL1, mask, val);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(i2c->regmap, i2c->i2c_mst_ofs + I2C_MST_CTRL1,
> + val, !(val & I2C_TRIG), 100, 2000);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (val & I2C_FAIL)
where is val taking taking this bit?
> + return -EIO;
> +
...
> + switch (size) {
> + case I2C_SMBUS_QUICK:
...
> + case I2C_SMBUS_BYTE:
...
> + case I2C_SMBUS_BYTE_DATA:
...
> + case I2C_SMBUS_WORD_DATA:
...
> + case I2C_SMBUS_BLOCK_DATA:
...
> + default:
> + dev_warn(&adap->dev, "Unsupported transaction %d\n", size);
dev_err() ?
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
...
> + switch (clock_freq) {
> + case I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ:
...
> + case I2C_MAX_FAST_MODE_FREQ:
...
> + default:
> + dev_warn(i2c->dev, "clock-frequency %d not supported\n", clock_freq);
> + return -EINVAL;
If we are returning an error we should print an error, let's make
it a "return dev_err_probe()"
But, I was thinking that by default we can assign
I2C_MAX_STANDARD_MODE_FREQ and if the DTS defines a different
frequency we could just print an error and stick to the default
value. Makes sense?
> + }
...
> + return i2c_add_adapter(adap);
return devm_i2c_add_adapter(adap);
and the remove function is not needed.
> +}
> +
> +static void rtl9300_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct rtl9300_i2c *i2c = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + i2c_del_adapter(&i2c->adap);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id i2c_rtl9300_dt_ids[] = {
> + { .compatible = "realtek,rtl9300-i2c" },
> + {}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, i2c_rtl9300_dt_ids);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver rtl9300_i2c_driver = {
> + .probe = rtl9300_i2c_probe,
> + .remove = rtl9300_i2c_remove,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "i2c-rtl9300",
> + .of_match_table = i2c_rtl9300_dt_ids,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +module_platform_driver(rtl9300_i2c_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("RTL9300 I2C controller driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> +
Just a trailing blank line here.
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists