| 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: <20231024223339.ccyybyvzrd22bxnh@skbuf>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 01:33:39 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, alsi@...g-olufsen.dk,
andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, arinc.unal@...nc9.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: realtek: support reset controller
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 05:58:04PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> The 'reset-gpios' will not work when the switch reset is controlled by a
> reset controller.
>
> Although the reset is optional and the driver performs a soft reset
> during setup, if the initial reset state was asserted, the driver will
> not detect it.
>
> This is an example of how to use the reset controller:
>
> switch {
> compatible = "realtek,rtl8366rb";
>
> resets = <&rst 8>;
> reset-names = "switch";
>
> ...
> }
Mix of tabs and spaces here.
Also, examples belong to the dt-schema.
>
> The reset controller will take precedence over the reset GPIO.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-mdio.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-smi.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek.h | 6 +++++
> 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-mdio.c b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-mdio.c
> index 292e6d087e8b..600124c58c00 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-mdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-mdio.c
> @@ -140,6 +140,23 @@ static const struct regmap_config realtek_mdio_nolock_regmap_config = {
> .disable_locking = true,
> };
>
> +static int realtek_mdio_hwreset(struct realtek_priv *priv, bool active)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER
> + if (priv->reset_ctl) {
> + if (active)
> + return reset_control_assert(priv->reset_ctl);
> + else
> + return reset_control_deassert(priv->reset_ctl);
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> + if (priv->reset)
> + gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, active);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
This "bool active" artificially unifies two discrete code paths in the
same function, where the callers are not the same and the implementation
is not the same (given a priv->reset_ctl presence), separated by an "if".
Would it make more sense to have discrete functions, each with its
unique caller, like this?
static int realtek_reset_assert(struct realtek_priv *priv)
{
if (priv->reset_ctl)
return reset_control_assert(priv->reset_ctl);
if (priv->reset)
gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, 1);
return 0;
}
static int realtek_reset_deassert(struct realtek_priv *priv)
{
if (priv->reset_ctl)
return reset_control_deassert(priv->reset_ctl);
if (priv->reset)
gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, 0);
return 0;
}
Also, you return int but ignore error values everywhere. I guess it
would make more sense to return void, but print warnings within the
reset functions if the calls to the reset control fail.
> static int realtek_mdio_probe(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> {
> struct realtek_priv *priv;
> @@ -194,20 +211,26 @@ static int realtek_mdio_probe(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
>
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
>
> - /* TODO: if power is software controlled, set up any regulators here */
I'm not sure if "power" and "reset" are the same thing...
> priv->leds_disabled = of_property_read_bool(np, "realtek,disable-leds");
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER
> + priv->reset_ctl = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "switch");
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->reset_ctl)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get switch reset control\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(priv->reset_ctl);
ret = PTR_ERR(priv->reset_ctl);
return dev_err_probe(dev, err, "failed to get reset control\n");
This suppresses -EPROBE_DEFER prints.
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> priv->reset = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
> if (IS_ERR(priv->reset)) {
> dev_err(dev, "failed to get RESET GPIO\n");
> return PTR_ERR(priv->reset);
> }
> -
> - if (priv->reset) {
> - gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, 1);
> + if (priv->reset_ctl || priv->reset) {
> + realtek_mdio_hwreset(priv, 1);
> dev_dbg(dev, "asserted RESET\n");
> msleep(REALTEK_HW_STOP_DELAY);
> - gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, 0);
> + realtek_mdio_hwreset(priv, 0);
> msleep(REALTEK_HW_START_DELAY);
> dev_dbg(dev, "deasserted RESET\n");
> }
> @@ -246,8 +269,7 @@ static void realtek_mdio_remove(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> dsa_unregister_switch(priv->ds);
>
> /* leave the device reset asserted */
> - if (priv->reset)
> - gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, 1);
> + realtek_mdio_hwreset(priv, 1);
nitpick: "bool" arguments should take "true" or "false".
> }
>
> static void realtek_mdio_shutdown(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-smi.c b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-smi.c
> index bfd11591faf4..751159d71223 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-smi.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/realtek/realtek-smi.c
> @@ -408,6 +408,23 @@ static int realtek_smi_setup_mdio(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int realtek_smi_hwreset(struct realtek_priv *priv, bool active)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER
> + if (priv->reset_ctl) {
> + if (active)
> + return reset_control_assert(priv->reset_ctl);
> + else
> + return reset_control_deassert(priv->reset_ctl);
> + }
> +#endif
> +
> + if (priv->reset)
> + gpiod_set_value(priv->reset, active);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
What is the reason for duplicating realtek_mdio_hwreset()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists