| 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: <87ldxnqued.fsf@bootlin.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 11:51:06 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk@...nel.org>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh
Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Christopher Cordahi <christophercordahi@...ometrics.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] memory: ti-aemif: Create aemif_check_cs_timings()
Hi Bastien,
On 13/11/2024 at 10:49:32 +01, Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com> wrote:
> aemif_calc_rate() check the validity of a new computed timing against a
> 'max' value given as input. This isn't convenient if we want to check
> the CS timing configuration somewhere else in the code.
>
> Wrap the verification of all the chip select's timing configuration into a
> single function to ease its exportation in upcoming patches.
> Remove the 'max' input from aemif_calc_rate() as it's no longer used.
I would split this commit into two separate smaller chunks. First, you
use a timings structure (which is a good idea), and second you
extract/clarify the timing checks. This is two different "features" IMO.
> Signed-off-by: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
> ---
> drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c b/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
> index d54dc3cfff73..eef086c8371b 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,27 @@ struct aemif_cs_data {
> u8 asize;
> };
>
> +/**
> + * struct aemif_cs_timings: structure to hold CS timing configuration
> + * values are expressed in number of clock cycles - 1
> + * @ta: minimum turn around time
> + * @rhold: read hold width
> + * @rstrobe: read strobe width
> + * @rsetup: read setup width
> + * @whold: write hold width
> + * @wstrobe: write strobe width
> + * @wsetup: write setup width
> + */
> +struct aemif_cs_timings {
> + u32 ta;
> + u32 rhold;
> + u32 rstrobe;
> + u32 rsetup;
> + u32 whold;
> + u32 wstrobe;
> + u32 wsetup;
> +};
> +
> /**
> * struct aemif_device: structure to hold device data
> * @base: base address of AEMIF registers
> @@ -125,18 +146,48 @@ struct aemif_device {
> struct aemif_cs_data cs_data[NUM_CS];
> };
>
> +/**
> + * aemif_check_cs_timings - Check the validity of a CS timing configuration.
> + * @timings: timings configuration
> + *
> + * @return: 0 if the timing configuration is valid, negative errno
> otherwise.
I thinks errno is a bit connoted "userspace", here you return a
"negative error number".
> + */
> +static int aemif_check_cs_timings(struct aemif_cs_timings *timings)
> +{
> + if (timings->ta > TA_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->rhold > RHOLD_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->rstrobe > RSTROBE_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->rsetup > RSETUP_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->whold > WHOLD_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->wstrobe > WSTROBE_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (timings->wsetup > WSETUP_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * aemif_calc_rate - calculate timing data.
> * @pdev: platform device to calculate for
> * @wanted: The cycle time needed in nanoseconds.
> * @clk: The input clock rate in kHz.
> - * @max: The maximum divider value that can be programmed.
> *
> * On success, returns the calculated timing value minus 1 for easy
> * programming into AEMIF timing registers, else negative errno.
> */
> -static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted,
> - unsigned long clk, int max)
> +static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted, unsigned long clk)
> {
> int result;
>
> @@ -149,10 +200,6 @@ static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted,
> if (result < 0)
> result = 0;
>
> - /* ... But configuring tighter timings is not an option. */
> - else if (result > max)
> - result = -EINVAL;
> -
> return result;
> }
>
> @@ -174,30 +221,32 @@ static int aemif_config_abus(struct platform_device *pdev, int csnum)
> {
> struct aemif_device *aemif = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> struct aemif_cs_data *data = &aemif->cs_data[csnum];
> - int ta, rhold, rstrobe, rsetup, whold, wstrobe, wsetup;
> unsigned long clk_rate = aemif->clk_rate;
> + struct aemif_cs_timings timings;
This is a matter of taste, but even though you fully initialize the
structure below *today*, I'd be future-proof by resetting the structure
here:
struct aemif_cs_timings timings = {};
> unsigned offset;
> u32 set, val;
> + int ret;
>
> offset = A1CR_OFFSET + (data->cs - aemif->cs_offset) * 4;
>
> - ta = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->ta, clk_rate, TA_MAX);
> - rhold = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rhold, clk_rate, RHOLD_MAX);
> - rstrobe = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rstrobe, clk_rate, RSTROBE_MAX);
> - rsetup = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rsetup, clk_rate, RSETUP_MAX);
> - whold = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->whold, clk_rate, WHOLD_MAX);
> - wstrobe = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->wstrobe, clk_rate, WSTROBE_MAX);
> - wsetup = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->wsetup, clk_rate, WSETUP_MAX);
> + timings.ta = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->ta, clk_rate);
> + timings.rhold = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rhold, clk_rate);
> + timings.rstrobe = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rstrobe, clk_rate);
> + timings.rsetup = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->rsetup, clk_rate);
> + timings.whold = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->whold, clk_rate);
> + timings.wstrobe = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->wstrobe, clk_rate);
> + timings.wsetup = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, data->wsetup, clk_rate);
>
> - if (ta < 0 || rhold < 0 || rstrobe < 0 || rsetup < 0 ||
> - whold < 0 || wstrobe < 0 || wsetup < 0) {
> + ret = aemif_check_cs_timings(&timings);
> + if (ret) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s: cannot get suitable timings\n",
> __func__);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> - set = TA(ta) | RHOLD(rhold) | RSTROBE(rstrobe) | RSETUP(rsetup) |
> - WHOLD(whold) | WSTROBE(wstrobe) | WSETUP(wsetup);
> + set = TA(timings.ta) |
> + RHOLD(timings.rhold) | RSTROBE(timings.rstrobe) | RSETUP(timings.rsetup) |
> + WHOLD(timings.whold) | WSTROBE(timings.wstrobe) | WSETUP(timings.wsetup);
>
> set |= (data->asize & ACR_ASIZE_MASK);
> if (data->enable_ew)
Otherwise lgtm.
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists