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;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Tue, 23 May 2023 22:07:43 +0300
Message-Id: <CSTW5YGZ50O1.16RYO14HOQRH2@suppilovahvero>
Cc:     <jsnitsel@redhat.com>, <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>, <lkp@intel.com>,
        <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
        <linux@mniewoehner.de>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>,
        <lukas@wunner.de>, <p.rosenberger@kunbus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm, tpm_tis: reuse code in disable_interrupts()
From:   "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     "Lino Sanfilippo" <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>, <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        <jgg@ziepe.ca>
References: <20230522143105.8617-1-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <20230522143105.8617-2-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <20230522143105.8617-2-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon May 22, 2023 at 5:31 PM EEST, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
>
> Avoid code redundancy by shifting part of the code in disable_interrupts(=
)
> into a subfunction and reusing this function in tpm_tis_handle_irq_storm(=
).
> Make sure that in the subfunction the INT_ENABLE register is written with=
 a
> claimed locality even if the caller did not claim it before.
>
> In the shifted code get rid of the variable "rc" by initializing the
> interrupt mask to zero at variable declaration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_c=
ore.c
> index 458ebf8c2f16..8f4f2cb5520f 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -468,25 +468,32 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_data(struct tpm_chip *chip,=
 const u8 *buf, size_t len)
>  	return rc;
>  }
> =20
> +static void __tpm_tis_disable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> +{
> +	struct tpm_tis_data *priv =3D dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> +	u32 intmask =3D 0;
> +
> +	tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> +	intmask &=3D ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
> +
> +	tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> +	tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
> +	tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(chip, 0);
> +
> +	chip->flags &=3D ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> +}
> +
>  static void disable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  {
>  	struct tpm_tis_data *priv =3D dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> -	u32 intmask;
> -	int rc;
> =20
>  	if (priv->irq =3D=3D 0)
>  		return;
> =20
> -	rc =3D tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> -	if (rc < 0)
> -		intmask =3D 0;
> -
> -	intmask &=3D ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
> -	rc =3D tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
> +	__tpm_tis_disable_interrupts(chip);
> =20
>  	devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq, chip);
>  	priv->irq =3D 0;
> -	chip->flags &=3D ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
>  }
> =20
>  /*
> @@ -755,20 +762,11 @@ static bool tpm_tis_req_canceled(struct tpm_chip *c=
hip, u8 status)
>  static void tpm_tis_handle_irq_storm(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  {
>  	struct tpm_tis_data *priv =3D dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> -	int intmask =3D 0;
> =20
>  	dev_err(&chip->dev, HW_ERR
>  		"TPM interrupt storm detected, polling instead\n");
> =20
> -	tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> -
> -	intmask &=3D ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
> -
> -	tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> -	tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
> -	tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(chip, 0);
> -
> -	chip->flags &=3D ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> +	__tpm_tis_disable_interrupts(chip);
> =20
>  	/*
>  	 * We must not call devm_free_irq() from within the interrupt handler,
> --=20
> 2.40.1

NAK as invidual change w/o further discussion.

Would need to be seen in context. This does not change kernel for
better.

If you want to wrap, please do it in 1/2 and then we can evaluate
whether it makes sense or not.

BR, Jarkko