Re: [PATCH 03/10] Intel PTI implementaiton of MIPI 1149.7.

[J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 10:28 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On Thursday 24 February 2011, james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > This driver is the Intel Atom implementation of MIPI P1149.7,
> > compact JTAG standard for mobile devices.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/misc/pti.c |  890 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 890 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/misc/pti.c
> 
> I have no idea what a "misc" driver really is, but this one clearly isn't
> one. When you register a tty here, drivers/tty would be the right place.

It went in misc because this driver has a tty interface, char interface,
and uses other things like console.  It is not just a tty-only device.

> > +
> > +struct pti_tty {
> > +	struct pti_masterchannel *mc;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct pti_dev {
> > +	struct tty_port port;
> > +	unsigned long pti_addr;
> > +	unsigned long aperture_base;
> > +	void __iomem *pti_ioaddr;
> > +	unsigned long pti_iolen;
> 
> pti_adr, aperture_base and pti_iolen seem to be unused in the driver, you
> only use them to get pti_ioaddr, so no need to store them.
> 
> > +	u8 IA_App[MAX_APP_IDS];
> > +	u8 IA_OS[MAX_OS_IDS];
> > +	u8 IA_Modem[MAX_MODEM_IDS];
> 
> Please use lowercase identifiers.
> 
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(alloclock);
> 
> It's not really clear what this protects. Please add some comment here.
> 
> > +static struct tty_driver *pti_tty_driver;
> > +
> > +static struct pti_dev *drv_data;
> 
> You use drv_data both for the global structure and for local variables,
> which is rather confusing to the reader.
> 
> > +static unsigned int pti_console_channel;
> > +static unsigned int pti_control_channel;
> 
> These don't need to be global, because they are only used in one function
> each (besides a pointless initialization).
> 
> Are you sure that you need no locking for them?
> 
> 
> > +static ssize_t pti_char_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *data,
> > +			      size_t len, loff_t *ppose)
> > +{
> > +	struct pti_masterchannel *mc;
> > +	void *kbuf;
> > +	const char __user *tmp;
> > +	size_t size = USER_COPY_SIZE, n = 0;
> > +
> > +	tmp = data;
> > +	mc = filp->private_data;
> > +
> > +	kbuf = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (kbuf == NULL)  {
> > +		pr_err("%s(%d): buf allocation failed\n",
> > +			__func__, __LINE__);
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		if (len - n > USER_COPY_SIZE)
> > +			size = USER_COPY_SIZE;
> > +		else
> > +			size = len - n;
> > +
> > +		if (copy_from_user(kbuf, tmp, size)) {
> > +			kfree(kbuf);
> > +			return n ? n : -EFAULT;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		pti_write_to_aperture(mc, kbuf, size);
> > +		n  += size;
> > +		tmp += size;
> > +
> > +	} while (len > n);
> > +
> > +	kfree(kbuf);
> > +	kbuf = NULL;
> > +
> > +	return len;
> > +}
> 
> You write chunks of 8KB here, which sounds rather large for a serial port.
> Is that intentional? What is the typical line rate? If you need more than
> a milisecond for a single write, you should probably return a short write
> to user space or at least call cond_resched() to be more friendly to
> other tasks.

Yes, 8KB of chunks is intentional.  In a side review with Alan cox, we
concluded 8KB was an appropriate size for this driver.

> 
> > +static const struct tty_operations pti_tty_driver_ops = {
> > +	.open		= pti_tty_driver_open,
> > +	.close		= pti_tty_driver_close,
> > +	.write		= pti_tty_driver_write,
> > +	.write_room	= pti_tty_write_room,
> > +	.install	= pti_tty_install,
> > +	.cleanup	= pti_tty_cleanup
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct file_operations pti_char_driver_ops = {
> > +	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
> > +	.write		= pti_char_write,
> > +	.open		= pti_char_open,
> > +	.release	= pti_char_release,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct miscdevice pti_char_driver = {
> > +	.minor		= MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
> > +	.name		= CHARNAME,
> > +	.fops		= &pti_char_driver_ops
> > +};
> > +
> 
> It's really strange to have both a tty and a character device that have similar
> operations. Why can't you have the pti_char_driver functionality in the tty driver?
> 

Because that is not what the customer wanted and this is why the driver
is located in misc/ ;-).  


> 	Arnd