| 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: <20250622152820.7333c88e@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 15:28:20 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Jorge Marques <jorge.marques@...log.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen
<lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Nuno
Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] iio: adc: Add support for ad4052
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:13:58 -0500
David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/25 11:08 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 09:54:52 -0500
> > David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/14/25 5:08 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:34:37 +0200
> >>> Jorge Marques <jorge.marques@...log.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The AD4052/AD4058/AD4050/AD4056 are versatile, 16-bit/12-bit, successive
> >>>> approximation register (SAR) analog-to-digital converter (ADC) that
> >>>> enables low-power, high-density data acquisition solutions without
> >>>> sacrificing precision. This ADC offers a unique balance of performance
> >>>> and power efficiency, plus innovative features for seamlessly switching
> >>>> between high-resolution and low-power modes tailored to the immediate
> >>>> needs of the system. The AD4052/AD4058/AD4050/AD4056 are ideal for
> >>>> battery-powered, compact data acquisition and edge sensing applications.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> +static int ad4052_update_xfer_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >>>> + struct iio_chan_spec const *chan)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct ad4052_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>>> + const struct iio_scan_type *scan_type;
> >>>> + struct spi_transfer *xfer = &st->xfer;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + scan_type = iio_get_current_scan_type(indio_dev, chan);
> >>>> + if (IS_ERR(scan_type))
> >>>> + return PTR_ERR(scan_type);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + xfer->rx_buf = st->raw;
> >>>> + xfer->bits_per_word = scan_type->realbits;
> >>>> + xfer->len = scan_type->realbits == 24 ? 4 : 2;
> >>>
> >>> This is a little odd. I'm not sure what happens with len not dividing
> >>> into a whole number of bits per word chunks.
> >>> Maybe a comment?
> >>
> >> Even better, there is now spi_bpw_to_bytes() for this.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> + xfer->speed_hz = AD4052_SPI_MAX_ADC_XFER_SPEED(st->vio_uv);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> +static int __ad4052_read_chan_raw(struct ad4052_state *st, int *val)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct spi_device *spi = st->spi;
> >>>> + struct spi_transfer t_cnv = {};
> >>>> + int ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + reinit_completion(&st->completion);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (st->cnv_gp) {
> >>>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(st->cnv_gp, 1);
> >>>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(st->cnv_gp, 0);
> >>>> + } else {
> >>>> + ret = spi_sync_transfer(spi, &t_cnv, 1);
> >>>
> >>> Add a comment for this. I can't immediately spot documentation on what
> >>> a content free transfer actually does. I assume pulses the chip select?
> >>> is that true for all SPI controllers?
> >>
> >> Should be. Setting .delay in the xfer would also make it more
> >> clear that this is doing.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> + if (ret)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Single sample read should be used only for oversampling and
> >>>> + * sampling frequency pairs that take less than 1 sec.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (st->gp1_irq) {
> >>>> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&st->completion,
> >>>> + msecs_to_jiffies(1000));
> >>>> + if (!ret)
> >>>> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = spi_sync_transfer(spi, &st->xfer, 1);
> >>>> + if (ret)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (st->xfer.len == 2)
> >>>> + *val = sign_extend32(*(u16 *)(st->raw), 15);
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + *val = sign_extend32(*(u32 *)(st->raw), 23);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int ad4052_debugfs_reg_access(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, unsigned int reg,
> >>>> + unsigned int writeval, unsigned int *readval)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct ad4052_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >>>> + int ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!iio_device_claim_direct(indio_dev))
> >>>
> >>> For these guards in the debugfs callback, please add a comment on why they
> >>> are needed. We've had a lot of questions about these recently and I'd
> >>> like it to be clear to people when they should cut and paste these and when
> >>> not.
> >>
> >> The reason I started doing this is that running the iio_info command attemps
> >> to read register 0x00 via the debug attribute of every single iio device. So
> >> if you run iio_info during a buffered read, and 0x00 is a valid register, it
> >> would break things without this check.
> >>
> >> Ideally, general purpose commands wouldn't be poking debug registers, but
> >> that isn't the case. But I suppose we could "fix" iio_info instead.
> >>
> >
> > Please do fix iio_info. It absolutely should not be poking the debug interfaces
> > except on specific debug calls. The user has to know they may be shooting themselves
> > in the foot.
> >
> > I'm not sure why a read of that register would break buffered capture though.
> > Is it a volatile register or is there a sequencing problem with multiple
> > accesses in this driver? If it is multiple accesses then that should be
> > prevented via a local lock, not whether we are in buffer mode or not.
>
> IIRC, this was particularly a problem on chips that have a separate data
> capture mode and reading a register exits data capture mode.
Those ones I'm fine with just having a comment that hopefully means it
doesn't get cut and paste somewhere inappropriate!
Jonathan
>
> >
> > So I'm fine with this defense where it is necessary for all register
> > accesses, but I would like to see comments on why it is necessary.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >>>
> >>>> + return -EBUSY;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (readval)
> >>>> + ret = regmap_read(st->regmap, reg, readval);
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + ret = regmap_write(st->regmap, reg, writeval);
> >>>> + iio_device_release_direct(indio_dev);
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> +}
> >>>
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists