Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <12f53ff1-a358-7129-c9ed-9b9fd7dad7e7@foss.st.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:28:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/3] rpmsg: char: Add TIOCMGET/TIOCMSET ioctl support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sarannya S <quic_sarannya@quicinc.com>,
        <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com>, <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        <quic_clew@quicinc.com>, <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@quicinc.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>
References: <1670418258-11502-1-git-send-email-quic_sarannya@quicinc.com>
 <1670418258-11502-4-git-send-email-quic_sarannya@quicinc.com>
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Organization: STMicroelectronics
In-Reply-To: <1670418258-11502-4-git-send-email-quic_sarannya@quicinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 12/7/22 14:04, Sarannya S wrote:
> Add TICOMGET and TIOCMSET ioctl support for rpmsg char device nodes
> to get/set the low level transport signals.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@quicinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sarannya S <quic_sarannya@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> index 3e0b8f3..8109d18 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>  #include <linux/rpmsg.h>
>  #include <linux/skbuff.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/termios.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  #include <uapi/linux/rpmsg.h>
>  
> @@ -68,6 +69,8 @@ struct rpmsg_eptdev {
>  	struct sk_buff_head queue;
>  	wait_queue_head_t readq;
>  
> +	u32 remote_signals;
> +	bool signals_pending;

Could you detail the need/use of signals_pending, in your implementation?
This is not obvious (at least for me)...

>  };
>  
>  int rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy(struct device *dev, void *data)
> @@ -109,7 +112,22 @@ static int rpmsg_ept_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *buf, int len,
>  	skb_queue_tail(&eptdev->queue, skb);
>  	spin_unlock(&eptdev->queue_lock);
>  
> -	/* wake up any blocking processes, waiting for new data */
> +	wake_up_interruptible(&eptdev->readq);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rpmsg_ept_flow_cb(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *priv, bool enable)
> +{
> +	struct rpmsg_eptdev *eptdev = priv;
> +
> +	if (enable)
> +		eptdev->remote_signals = TIOCM_DSR | TIOCM_CTS;
> +	else
> +		eptdev->remote_signals = 0;
> +
> +	eptdev->signals_pending = true;
> +
>  	wake_up_interruptible(&eptdev->readq);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -146,6 +164,7 @@ static int rpmsg_eptdev_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	ept->flow_cb = rpmsg_ept_flow_cb;
>  	eptdev->ept = ept;
>  	filp->private_data = eptdev;
>  	mutex_unlock(&eptdev->ept_lock);
> @@ -166,6 +185,7 @@ static int rpmsg_eptdev_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
>  		eptdev->ept = NULL;
>  	}
>  	mutex_unlock(&eptdev->ept_lock);
> +	eptdev->signals_pending = false;
>  
>  	/* Discard all SKBs */
>  	skb_queue_purge(&eptdev->queue);
> @@ -279,6 +299,9 @@ static __poll_t rpmsg_eptdev_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
>  	if (!skb_queue_empty(&eptdev->queue))
>  		mask |= EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM;
>  
> +	if (eptdev->signals_pending)
> +		mask |= EPOLLPRI;
> +
>  	mask |= rpmsg_poll(eptdev->ept, filp, wait);
>  
>  	return mask;
> @@ -289,14 +312,35 @@ static long rpmsg_eptdev_ioctl(struct file *fp, unsigned int cmd,
>  {
>  	struct rpmsg_eptdev *eptdev = fp->private_data;
>  
> -	if (cmd != RPMSG_DESTROY_EPT_IOCTL)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	/* Don't allow to destroy a default endpoint. */
> -	if (eptdev->default_ept)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +	bool set;
> +	u32 val;
> +	int ret;
> +	
> +	switch (cmd) {
> +	case TIOCMGET:
> +		eptdev->signals_pending = false;
> +		ret = put_user(eptdev->remote_signals, (int __user *)arg);
> +		break;
> +	case TIOCMSET:
> +		ret = get_user(val, (int __user *)arg);
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +		set = (val & (TIOCM_DTR | TIOCM_RTS)) ? true : false;
> +		ret = rpmsg_set_flow_control(eptdev->ept, set, 0);
> +		break;

I still wonder if it makes sense to implement serial IOCTRL in rpmsg_char.
I think it is quite dangerous to have such kind of mixed interface.
User application would want to use the serial interface should use the tty
interface.

For the rpmsg char, I would be in favor of creating a specific RPMSG IOCTRLs
to avoid confusion.

For instance:

 - RPMSG_GET_SIGN_IOCTRL
 - RPMSG_SET_SIGN_IOCTRL

With associated parameter corresponding to the bitmap proposed in my comment of
your patch 1/4.

Of course, this is only a suggestion, I let Bjorn and Mathieu comment.

Regards,
Arnaud


> +	case RPMSG_DESTROY_EPT_IOCTL:
> +		/* Don't allow to destroy a default endpoint. */
> +		if (eptdev->default_ept) {
> +			ret = -EINVAL;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		ret = rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy(&eptdev->dev, NULL);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +	}
>  
> -	return rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy(&eptdev->dev, NULL);
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
>  static const struct file_operations rpmsg_eptdev_fops = {