Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp893727ybl; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:35:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzq38z5qfmjGx/QyLlhs3RQ685v0nTp/kzgk7ODMABE76J8c+mcMqRW4uf2o3SuQ2aAj/1f X-Received: by 2002:aca:f487:: with SMTP id s129mr5281071oih.154.1576161321516; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:35:21 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1576161321; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=QzCTaz0VGlWBrB2sDsnNcqh5pb6KgxY5idAAmW48fd0Mj4tLPHpQDjjEwSCL5AYv/O gKGFWfM9rHRHuWaWRtlFoffF7qRTAWLf45mApggylQvslJcdrYgKndW78Eo2X7KLb0Q/ f+riAJU7zoMM6glIXdeT/YQInyXSVEycpc+YM23qbeRnejhMw7b5bOfGLfS+lPi9TEWl Ig1u9rlhtoM2tj2VCy5E9r2B+zO6FLPUWpppN1O1Sh6cm/QmQyuuZjXf8dmbQANaTMJE wlOhTbXYSF2BmKUm5DXY4nO2/bwshG1HX5GKBiwMDVrvhxNB1wjmgpByuDql5mvwdjRJ IljA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=M01hRpD11CkkOeauBIVCjuItQ11kCezb4GIbMatT12c=; b=p3LsdvyzFUg3npDEhn4Ar4kjBz/h8WJEozt/DLVjzU+rYkrC5XgjnubDT6pfkUIHP1 wD22t4d+GsnjmieHT98piqoNPwiku33FpD0WmdoSN5bjW3h20uMiYErxbPt/TQV/I3KI m54dNR4L1fPpM1WlBDCQRPcRQVx3gEVogfSC/waH7qvp/Ztq3mQlKnJA4qwSss8gyYfR ytgdSC/O95x/tYmGhnTQTWpq7oXJwMTUnfEwZ0NDlM4e8QtEqBzfa5jYsYtUUJgXDlfB CNf6oaUZ7qh8YYGerddS7G8WPoAyP++MfuWTnUC9sAsyvOGyD9Gef77cN1/z+0v0E9Yh OTuw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=jwMxC2Kj; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w24si2899315oic.260.2019.12.12.06.35.07; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@linaro.org header.s=google header.b=jwMxC2Kj; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=linaro.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729746AbfLLOeZ (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:34:25 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com ([209.85.208.195]:35555 "EHLO mail-lj1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729603AbfLLOeY (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:34:24 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id j6so2558622lja.2 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:34:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=M01hRpD11CkkOeauBIVCjuItQ11kCezb4GIbMatT12c=; b=jwMxC2KjvVPAJJabNt2EixKGKNXDmT6INs3XC3sgyHNqZBtPmTN4Tm+tz0Ys8mMnlI 6iXQrpWyX159Jei4YMB2xTsoD/xSMAZVmG2upOB4pQq9PG0NPT5ZVkVMoeHIMv0ALiLq ZqRfteFEjzauejojoUL4jnojtYaFCLrtZMLNlqiFNufQeb9yeU6XifAljnjLUYBpIRZ3 hCe6KvmaOnpA8ZxohByGH/M3WUG0NmNop6Ept8tGjmI9oYU7NethV3yAqH8g+ORjoocp eKj+9MPSdmcu1QAjGxi/pYJmZ5pU1BKMgd/Xx5nJs25JpNgA5IejqQ41Bj0K/IkFut/G XvtA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M01hRpD11CkkOeauBIVCjuItQ11kCezb4GIbMatT12c=; b=qbjOTjycTuXjl6+ymltZ+r49U8D2vCbFD8980NxYUlLpkxyiwX8TlCz+A2l8bpXyR9 EiCqCtq3vsBhy2aB6iA6NeO8q+aPtp0UTBSZ9ScFJvanGfOfqx4V1ulXWfmbATaib2VB sTOfFbGiLV8EFYnEZEOE5vmITq04dqZckYiC7v9WjJXm+LSBtOaxCkbpN8jgbtDMqyDz HJshStxulPZVugTGtHuMZr71C1uTUV9qlGj8gYBznREMdxSA460GG7kxpQiWRsc8PYJ8 Df19Qm9AIWVJZ10iGvGuP2gg2cSTUMoXo/u0gnL5AIWdgi6wYt9oX4f3Ks6aCLtfYzSx 0U5w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWn02ywLUyzd3Lu5aXxkBkHRqy4Kk5XO4AWacsXdgEOoHcDlAm 3xmBB/WpDr4GEiJOwB35i/ktt0YiGTrPBUCm96TiwA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ec4:: with SMTP id h4mr6202874ljk.77.1576161261524; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:34:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191127084253.16356-1-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20191127084253.16356-6-geert+renesas@glider.be> In-Reply-To: <20191127084253.16356-6-geert+renesas@glider.be> From: Linus Walleij Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:34:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] gpio: Add GPIO Aggregator/Repeater driver To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , Jonathan Corbet , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Harish Jenny K N , Eugeniu Rosca , Alexander Graf , Peter Maydell , Paolo Bonzini , Phil Reid , Marc Zyngier , Christoffer Dall , Magnus Damm , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Doc Mailing List , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , Linux-Renesas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , QEMU Developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Geert! Thanks for this interesting patch! On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 9:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > GPIO controllers are exported to userspace using /dev/gpiochip* > character devices. Access control to these devices is provided by > standard UNIX file system permissions, on an all-or-nothing basis: > either a GPIO controller is accessible for a user, or it is not. > Currently no mechanism exists to control access to individual GPIOs. > > Hence add a GPIO driver to aggregate existing GPIOs, and expose them as > a new gpiochip. > > This supports the following use cases: > 1. Aggregating GPIOs using Sysfs > This is useful for implementing access control, and assigning a set > of GPIOs to a specific user or virtual machine. > > 2. GPIO Repeater in Device Tree > This supports modelling e.g. GPIO inverters in DT. > > 3. Generic GPIO Driver > This provides userspace access to a simple GPIO-operated device > described in DT, cfr. e.g. spidev for SPI-operated devices. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven Overall I like how this is developing! > +config GPIO_AGGREGATOR > + tristate "GPIO Aggregator/Repeater" > + help > + Say yes here to enable the GPIO Aggregator and repeater, which > + provides a way to aggregate and/or repeat existing GPIOs into a new > + GPIO device. Should it say a "new virtual GPIO chip"? > + This can serve the following purposes: > + 1. Assign a collection of GPIOs to a user, or export them to a > + virtual machine, This is ambiguous. What is a "user"? A process calling from userspace? A device tree node? I would write "assign a collection of GPIO lines from any lines on existing physical GPIO chips to form a new virtual GPIO chip" That should be to the point, right? > + 2. Support GPIOs that are connected to a physical inverter, s/to/through/g > + 3. Provide a generic driver for a GPIO-operated device, to be > + controlled from userspace using the GPIO chardev interface. I don't understand this, it needs to be elaborated. What is meant by a "GPIO-operated device" in this context? Example? I consistently use the term "GPIO line" as opposed to "GPIO" or "GPIO number" etc that are abigous, so please rephrase using "GPIO lines" rather than just "GPIOs" above. > +#include "gpiolib.h" Whenever this is included in a driver I want it to come with a comment explicitly stating exactly why and which internal symbols the driver needs to access. Ideally all drivers should just need ... > +static int aggr_add_gpio(struct gpio_aggregator *aggr, const char *label, > + int hwnum, unsigned int *n) u16 hwnum for the hardware number but if it is always -1/U16_MAX then why pass the parameter at all. Is "label" the right name of this parameter if that is going to actually be line_name then use that. > +{ > + struct gpiod_lookup_table *lookups; > + > + lookups = krealloc(aggr->lookups, struct_size(lookups, table, *n + 2), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!lookups) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + lookups->table[*n].chip_label = label; This is pending the discussion on whether to just use "key" for this name. > + lookups->table[*n].chip_hwnum = hwnum; If this is always going to be U16_MAX (-1 in the current code) then it can just be assigned as that here instead of passed as parameter. > +static int aggr_parse(struct gpio_aggregator *aggr) > +{ > + char *name, *offsets, *first, *last, *next; > + unsigned int a, b, i, n = 0; > + char *args = aggr->args; > + int error; > + > + for (name = get_arg(&args), offsets = get_arg(&args); name; > + offsets = get_arg(&args)) { > + if (IS_ERR(name)) { > + pr_err("Cannot get GPIO specifier: %ld\n", > + PTR_ERR(name)); > + return PTR_ERR(name); > + } > + > + if (!isrange(offsets)) { > + /* Named GPIO line */ > + error = aggr_add_gpio(aggr, name, -1, &n); So the third argument woule be U16_MAX here. Or not pass a parameter at all. But honestly, when I look at this I don't understand why you have to avoid so hard to use offsets for the GPIO lines on your aggregator? Just put a u16 ngpios in your struct gpio_aggregator and count it up every time you add some new offsets here and you have offset numbers for all your GPIO lines on the aggregator and you can just drop the patch for lookup up lines by line names. Is there something wrong with my reasoning here? At the pointe later when the lines are counted from the allocated lookups using gpiod_count() that will just figure out this number anyways, so it is not like we don't know it at the end of the day. So it seems the patch to gpiolib is just to use machine descriptor tables as a substitute for a simple counter variable in this local struct to me. > +static void __exit gpio_aggregator_remove_all(void) > +{ > + mutex_lock(&gpio_aggregator_lock); > + idr_for_each(&gpio_aggregator_idr, gpio_aggregator_idr_remove, NULL); > + idr_destroy(&gpio_aggregator_idr); > + mutex_unlock(&gpio_aggregator_lock); > +} > + > + > + /* > + * Common GPIO Forwarder > + */ > + Nitpick: lots and weird spacing here. > +struct gpiochip_fwd { > + struct gpio_chip chip; > + struct gpio_desc **descs; > + union { > + struct mutex mlock; /* protects tmp[] if can_sleep */ > + spinlock_t slock; /* protects tmp[] if !can_sleep */ > + }; That was a very elegant use of union! > +static int gpio_fwd_get_multiple(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long *mask, > + unsigned long *bits) > +static void gpio_fwd_set_multiple(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned long *mask, > + unsigned long *bits) I guess these can both be optimized to use get/set_multiple on the target chip if the offsets are consecutive? However that is going to be tricky so I'm not saying you should implement that. So for now, let's say just add a TODO: comment about it. > +static int gpio_fwd_init_valid_mask(struct gpio_chip *chip, > + unsigned long *valid_mask, > + unsigned int ngpios) > +{ > + struct gpiochip_fwd *fwd = gpiochip_get_data(chip); > + unsigned int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < ngpios; i++) { > + if (!gpiochip_line_is_valid(fwd->descs[i]->gdev->chip, > + gpio_chip_hwgpio(fwd->descs[i]))) > + clear_bit(i, valid_mask); > + } This is what uses "gpiolib.h" is it not? devm_gpiod_get_index() will not succeed if the line is not valid so I think this can be just dropped, since what you do before this is exactly devm_gpiod_get_index() on each line, then you call gpiochip_fwd_create() with the result. So I think you can just drop this entire function. This will not happen. If it does happen, add a comment above this loop explaining which circumstances would make lines on the forwarder invalid. > + for (i = 0; i < ngpios; i++) { > + dev_dbg(dev, "gpio %u => gpio-%d (%s)\n", i, > + desc_to_gpio(descs[i]), descs[i]->label ? : "?"); > + > + if (gpiod_cansleep(descs[i])) > + chip->can_sleep = true; > + if (descs[i]->gdev->chip->set_config) > + chip->set_config = gpio_fwd_set_config; > + if (descs[i]->gdev->chip->init_valid_mask) > + chip->init_valid_mask = gpio_fwd_init_valid_mask; > + } I do not think you should need to inspect the init_valid_mask() as explained above. Add a comment above the loop that if any of the GPIO lines are sleeping then the entire forwarder will be sleeping and if any of the chips support .set_config() we will support setting configs. However the way that the .gpio_fwd_set_config() is coded it looks like you can just unconditionally assign it and only check the cansleep condition in this loop. > +} > + > + > + /* > + * Common GPIO Aggregator/Repeater platform device > + */ > + Nitpick: weird and excess spacing again. > + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { > + descs[i] = devm_gpiod_get_index(dev, NULL, i, GPIOD_ASIS); > + if (IS_ERR(descs[i])) > + return PTR_ERR(descs[i]); > + } If this succeeds none of the obtained gpio_desc:s can be invalid. Yours, Linus Walleij