All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	Jason Kridner <jkridner@beagleboard.org>,
	Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@beagleboard.org>,
	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl-single: fix pcs_parse_pinconf() return value
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:19:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200626191946.GA97666@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200616115951.GA3976568@x1>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:59:51PM +0200, Drew Fustini wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:51 PM Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > This patch causes pcs_parse_pinconf() to return -ENOTSUPP when no
> > > pinctrl_map is added.  The current behavior is to return 0 when
> > > !PCS_HAS_PINCONF or !nconfs.  Thus pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry()
> > > incorrectly assumes that a map was added and sets num_maps = 2.
> > >
> > > Analysis:
> > > =========
> > > The function pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() calls pcs_parse_pinconf()
> > > if PCS_HAS_PINCONF is enabled.  The function pcs_parse_pinconf()
> > > returns 0 to indicate there was no error and num_maps is then set to 2:
> > >
> > >  980 static int pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
> > >  981                                                 struct device_node *np,
> > >  982                                                 struct pinctrl_map **map,
> > >  983                                                 unsigned *num_maps,
> > >  984                                                 const char **pgnames)
> > >  985 {
> > > <snip>
> > > 1053         (*map)->type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP;
> > > 1054         (*map)->data.mux.group = np->name;
> > > 1055         (*map)->data.mux.function = np->name;
> > > 1056
> > > 1057         if (PCS_HAS_PINCONF && function) {
> > > 1058                 res = pcs_parse_pinconf(pcs, np, function, map);
> > > 1059                 if (res)
> > > 1060                         goto free_pingroups;
> > > 1061                 *num_maps = 2;
> > > 1062         } else {
> > > 1063                 *num_maps = 1;
> > > 1064         }
> > >
> > > However, pcs_parse_pinconf() will also return 0 if !PCS_HAS_PINCONF or
> > > !nconfs.  I believe these conditions should indicate that no map was
> > > added by returning -ENOTSUPP. Otherwise pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry()
> > > will set num_maps = 2 even though no maps were successfully added, as
> > > it does not reach "m++" on line 940:
> > >
> > >  895 static int pcs_parse_pinconf(struct pcs_device *pcs, struct device_node *np,
> > >  896                              struct pcs_function *func,
> > >  897                              struct pinctrl_map **map)
> > >  898
> > >  899 {
> > >  900         struct pinctrl_map *m = *map;
> > > <snip>
> > >  917         /* If pinconf isn't supported, don't parse properties in below. */
> > >  918         if (!PCS_HAS_PINCONF)
> > >  919                 return 0;
> > >  920
> > >  921         /* cacluate how much properties are supported in current node */
> > >  922         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prop2); i++) {
> > >  923                 if (of_find_property(np, prop2[i].name, NULL))
> > >  924                         nconfs++;
> > >  925         }
> > >  926         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prop4); i++) {
> > >  927                 if (of_find_property(np, prop4[i].name, NULL))
> > >  928                         nconfs++;
> > >  929         }
> > >  930         if (!nconfs)
> > >  919                 return 0;
> > >  932
> > >  933         func->conf = devm_kcalloc(pcs->dev,
> > >  934                                   nconfs, sizeof(struct pcs_conf_vals),
> > >  935                                   GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  936         if (!func->conf)
> > >  937                 return -ENOMEM;
> > >  938         func->nconfs = nconfs;
> > >  939         conf = &(func->conf[0]);
> > >  940         m++;
> > >
> > > This situtation will cause a boot failure [0] on the BeagleBone Black
> > > (AM3358) when am33xx_pinmux node in arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
> > > has compatible = "pinconf-single" instead of "pinctrl-single".
> > >
> > > The patch fixes this issue by returning -ENOSUPP when !PCS_HAS_PINCONF
> > > or !nconfs, so that pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() will know that no
> > > map was added.
> > >
> > > Logic is also added to pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() to distinguish
> > > between -ENOSUPP and other errors.  In the case of -ENOSUPP, num_maps
> > > is set to 1 as it is valid for pinconf to be enabled and a given pin
> > > group to not any pinconf properties.
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-omap/20200529175544.GA3766151@x1/
> > >
> > > Fixes: 9dddb4df90d1 ("pinctrl: single: support generic pinconf")
> > > Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>
> > 
> > Patch applied as non-critical (for-next) fix.
> > 
> > If there is no hurry let's merge it this way with lots of testing
> > along the way.
> > 
> > Yours,
> > Linus Walleij
> 
> Thanks, I agree more testing is a good idea.
> 
> In particular, do you have a way to followup with Haojian Zhuang within
> Linaro?
> 

Linus - do you have a way to contact Haojian Zhuan?

I found them on Freenode but they have been idle since beginning of
June.  Last email I can find on the mailing list is from March.

Tony and I would both like someone familiar with Hisilicon to comment on
this patch as it is using pinctrl-single.

Thanks,
Drew

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@beagleboard.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jason Kridner <jkridner@beagleboard.org>,
	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>,
	Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl-single: fix pcs_parse_pinconf() return value
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 21:19:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200626191946.GA97666@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200616115951.GA3976568@x1>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 01:59:51PM +0200, Drew Fustini wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:51 PM Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > This patch causes pcs_parse_pinconf() to return -ENOTSUPP when no
> > > pinctrl_map is added.  The current behavior is to return 0 when
> > > !PCS_HAS_PINCONF or !nconfs.  Thus pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry()
> > > incorrectly assumes that a map was added and sets num_maps = 2.
> > >
> > > Analysis:
> > > =========
> > > The function pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() calls pcs_parse_pinconf()
> > > if PCS_HAS_PINCONF is enabled.  The function pcs_parse_pinconf()
> > > returns 0 to indicate there was no error and num_maps is then set to 2:
> > >
> > >  980 static int pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry(struct pcs_device *pcs,
> > >  981                                                 struct device_node *np,
> > >  982                                                 struct pinctrl_map **map,
> > >  983                                                 unsigned *num_maps,
> > >  984                                                 const char **pgnames)
> > >  985 {
> > > <snip>
> > > 1053         (*map)->type = PIN_MAP_TYPE_MUX_GROUP;
> > > 1054         (*map)->data.mux.group = np->name;
> > > 1055         (*map)->data.mux.function = np->name;
> > > 1056
> > > 1057         if (PCS_HAS_PINCONF && function) {
> > > 1058                 res = pcs_parse_pinconf(pcs, np, function, map);
> > > 1059                 if (res)
> > > 1060                         goto free_pingroups;
> > > 1061                 *num_maps = 2;
> > > 1062         } else {
> > > 1063                 *num_maps = 1;
> > > 1064         }
> > >
> > > However, pcs_parse_pinconf() will also return 0 if !PCS_HAS_PINCONF or
> > > !nconfs.  I believe these conditions should indicate that no map was
> > > added by returning -ENOTSUPP. Otherwise pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry()
> > > will set num_maps = 2 even though no maps were successfully added, as
> > > it does not reach "m++" on line 940:
> > >
> > >  895 static int pcs_parse_pinconf(struct pcs_device *pcs, struct device_node *np,
> > >  896                              struct pcs_function *func,
> > >  897                              struct pinctrl_map **map)
> > >  898
> > >  899 {
> > >  900         struct pinctrl_map *m = *map;
> > > <snip>
> > >  917         /* If pinconf isn't supported, don't parse properties in below. */
> > >  918         if (!PCS_HAS_PINCONF)
> > >  919                 return 0;
> > >  920
> > >  921         /* cacluate how much properties are supported in current node */
> > >  922         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prop2); i++) {
> > >  923                 if (of_find_property(np, prop2[i].name, NULL))
> > >  924                         nconfs++;
> > >  925         }
> > >  926         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(prop4); i++) {
> > >  927                 if (of_find_property(np, prop4[i].name, NULL))
> > >  928                         nconfs++;
> > >  929         }
> > >  930         if (!nconfs)
> > >  919                 return 0;
> > >  932
> > >  933         func->conf = devm_kcalloc(pcs->dev,
> > >  934                                   nconfs, sizeof(struct pcs_conf_vals),
> > >  935                                   GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  936         if (!func->conf)
> > >  937                 return -ENOMEM;
> > >  938         func->nconfs = nconfs;
> > >  939         conf = &(func->conf[0]);
> > >  940         m++;
> > >
> > > This situtation will cause a boot failure [0] on the BeagleBone Black
> > > (AM3358) when am33xx_pinmux node in arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
> > > has compatible = "pinconf-single" instead of "pinctrl-single".
> > >
> > > The patch fixes this issue by returning -ENOSUPP when !PCS_HAS_PINCONF
> > > or !nconfs, so that pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() will know that no
> > > map was added.
> > >
> > > Logic is also added to pcs_parse_one_pinctrl_entry() to distinguish
> > > between -ENOSUPP and other errors.  In the case of -ENOSUPP, num_maps
> > > is set to 1 as it is valid for pinconf to be enabled and a given pin
> > > group to not any pinconf properties.
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-omap/20200529175544.GA3766151@x1/
> > >
> > > Fixes: 9dddb4df90d1 ("pinctrl: single: support generic pinconf")
> > > Signed-off-by: Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>
> > 
> > Patch applied as non-critical (for-next) fix.
> > 
> > If there is no hurry let's merge it this way with lots of testing
> > along the way.
> > 
> > Yours,
> > Linus Walleij
> 
> Thanks, I agree more testing is a good idea.
> 
> In particular, do you have a way to followup with Haojian Zhuang within
> Linaro?
> 

Linus - do you have a way to contact Haojian Zhuan?

I found them on Freenode but they have been idle since beginning of
June.  Last email I can find on the mailing list is from March.

Tony and I would both like someone familiar with Hisilicon to comment on
this patch as it is using pinctrl-single.

Thanks,
Drew

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-26 19:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-08 12:51 [PATCH v2] pinctrl-single: fix pcs_parse_pinconf() return value Drew Fustini
2020-06-08 12:51 ` Drew Fustini
2020-06-09 18:06 ` Tony Lindgren
2020-06-09 18:06   ` Tony Lindgren
2020-06-16  8:31 ` Linus Walleij
2020-06-16  8:31   ` Linus Walleij
2020-06-16 11:59   ` Drew Fustini
2020-06-16 11:59     ` Drew Fustini
2020-06-26 19:19     ` Drew Fustini [this message]
2020-06-26 19:19       ` Drew Fustini
2020-07-05  8:58 ` Haojian Zhuang
2020-07-05  8:58   ` Haojian Zhuang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200626191946.GA97666@x1 \
    --to=drew@beagleboard.org \
    --cc=daniel@zonque.org \
    --cc=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
    --cc=haojian.zhuang@linaro.org \
    --cc=jkridner@beagleboard.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robert.jarzmik@free.fr \
    --cc=robertcnelson@beagleboard.org \
    --cc=tony@atomide.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.