* Re: [PATCH] Topcliff PHUB: Add The Packet Hub driver [1/2]
2010-04-23 13:49 [PATCH] Topcliff PHUB: Add The Packet Hub driver [1/2] Masayuki Ohtake
@ 2010-04-23 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-04-26 7:53 ` Masayuki Ohtake
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2010-04-23 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masayuki Ohtake; +Cc: NETDEV, Wang, Yong Y, Wang, Qi, andrew.chih.howe.khor
On Friday 23 April 2010, Masayuki Ohtake wrote:
>From: Masayuki Ohtake <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>
>
>This patch adds the Packet Hub driver for Topcliff.
>Patch created against 2.6.33.1
Thank you for your submission. Since this is the first time
you posted this patch, there is naturally a lot that needs
to be improved on before the driver can be merged. I'll
go through this in detail so you can improve it for the
next submission.
First of all, you need to decide where you want the code
to go. The quickest path is to get it into drivers/staging,
which can accept code that does not yet follow the kernel
coding style or may still need changes to its user interface,
see http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/linux-staging-update.html
If you want to go straight into the regular supported driver
directory, that is also ok but requires more upfront work on
coding style and addressing review comments like the ones
I make below. Addressing the comments typically means that
you either change your code as suggested or that you argue
that your version is actually correct.
The patch description above needs to tell the reader what
the driver actually does and what the hardware is for.
>Signed-off-by: Masayuki Ohtake <masa-korg@dsn.okisemi.com>
>---
> drivers/char/Kconfig | 7++
> drivers/char/Makefile | 2
> drivers/char/pch_phub/Makefile | 9
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_common.h | 147
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_debug.h | 58
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_phub.c | 375
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_phub.h | 195
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_phub_hal.c | 544
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_phub_hal.h | 124
> drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_phub_pci.c | 499
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 10 files changed, 1960 insertions(+)
You have submitted this driver to the netdev list, but put
the code into drivers/char. If this is really a network driver,
it should probably go into drivers/net, otherwise it needs to be
reviewed on the main linux-kernel mailing list.
If you want it to be applied as a staging driver first, change
the code location to drivers/staging first a
>diff -urN linux-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/Kconfig
>topcliff-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/Kconfig
>--- linux-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/Kconfig 2010-03-16 01:09:39.000000000 +0900
>+++ topcliff-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/Kconfig 2010-04-14 18:19:10.000000000
>+0900
>@@ -4,6 +4,13 @@
Evidently, your email client breaks line-wrapping. This means that it's
not possibly to apply the patch. Please see Documentation/email-clients.txt
on how to fix this.
To make sure this does not happen again, you can send the patch to yourself
and try to apply it from the email as a test before you send it to a
mailing list.
> menu "Character devices"
>
>+config PCH_PHUB
>+ tristate "PCH PHUB"
>+ depends on PCI
>+ help
>+ If you say yes to this option, support will be included for the
>+ PCH Packet Hub Host controller.
>+
> config VT
> bool "Virtual terminal" if EMBEDDED
> depends on !S390
This description also should be more helpful. This could be the same
text that you will put in the patch description above.
>diff -urN linux-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_common.h
>topcliff-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_common.h
>--- linux-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_common.h 1970-01-01
>09:00:00.000000000 +0900
>+++ topcliff-2.6.33.1/drivers/char/pch_phub/pch_common.h 2010-04-14
>15:29:48.000000000 +0900
>@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
>+/*!
>+ * @file pch_common.h
>+ * @brief Provides the macro definitions used by all files.
>+ * @version 1.0.0.0
>+ * @section
You seem to use a tool for processing the comments into documentation,
which is good. However, the syntax you use is incompatible with the
one used in the kernel and should be changed to the 'kerneldoc'
format, see Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt.
>+/*! @ingroup Global
>+@def PCH_WRITE8
>+@brief Macro for writing 8 bit data to an io/mem address
>+*/
>+#define PCH_WRITE8(val, addr) iowrite8((val), (void __iomem *)(addr))
>+/*! @ingroup Global
>+@def PCH_LOG
>+@brief Macro for writing 16 bit data to an io/mem address
>+*/
>+#define PCH_WRITE16(val, addr) iowrite16((val), (void __iomem *)(addr))
>+/*! @ingroup Global
>+@def PCH_LOG
>+@brief Macro for writing 32 bit data to an io/mem address
In general, wrapping kernel functions in a driver specific macro that
does not do anything else is discouraged. It's best to delete these
macros and change the code to use the underlying interfaces directly.
>+#ifndef __PCH_DEBUG_H__
>+#define __PCH_DEBUG_H__
>+
>+#ifdef MODULE
>+#define PCH_LOG(level, fmt, args...) printk(level "%s:" fmt "\n",\
>+ THIS_MODULE->name, ##args)
>+#else
>+#define PCH_LOG(level, fmt, args...) printk(level "%s:" fmt "\n" ,\
>+ __FILE__, ##args)
>+#endif
>+
>+
>+#ifdef DEBUG
>+ #define PCH_DEBUG(fmt, args...) PCH_LOG(KERN_DEBUG, fmt, ##args)
>+#else
>+ #define PCH_DEBUG(fmt, args...)
>+#endif
>+
>+#ifdef PCH_TRACE_ENABLED
>+ #define PCH_TRACE PCH_DEBUG
>+#else
>+ #define PCH_TRACE(fmt, args...)
>+#endif
>+
>+#define PCH_TRACE_ENTER PCH_TRACE("Enter %s", __func__)
>+#define PCH_TRACE_EXIT PCH_TRACE("Exit %s", __func__)
For these macros, we already have existing interfaces in the kernel,
you should remove yours and use dev_dbg, dev_info, pr_debug etc.
The tracing functions can probably just be removed here. If you
feel that you need tracing, please take a look at the kernel
tracing subsystem. There is an excellent series of articles
about tracing at http://lwn.net/Articles/383362/.
>+/**
>+ * file_operations structure initialization
>+ */
>+const struct file_operations pch_phub_fops = {
>+ .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>+ .open = pch_phub_open,
>+ .release = pch_phub_release,
>+ .ioctl = pch_phub_ioctl,
>+};
New code should use the 'unlocked_ioctl' callback instead of 'ioctl'.
The whitespace in this patch is damaged: indentation of code should
be done with tabs instead of spaces. It's not clear if the code is
written like this, or it was damaged by your email client.
If the problem is part of your actual code, have a look at
Documentation/CodingStyle for how it should look like.
>+/*function implementations*/
>+
>+/*! @ingroup PHUB_InterfaceLayerAPI
>+ @fn int pch_phub_open( struct inode *inode,struct file *file)
>+ @remarks Implements the Initializing and opening of the Packet Hub
>module.
>+ @param inode [@ref INOUT] Contains the reference of the inode
>+ structure
>+ @param file [@ref INOUT] Contains the reference of the file structure
>+ @retval returnvalue [@ref OUT] contains the result for the concerned
>+ attempt.
>+ The result would generally comprise of success code
>+ or failure code. The failure code will indicate reason for
>+ failure.
>+ @see
>+ EBUSY
>+ */
>+int pch_phub_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>+{
Since this is not an exported interface, it the function should
probably be marked 'static'.
>+ int ret_value = PCH_PHUB_SUCCESS;
>+ struct pch_phub_reqt *p_pch_phub_reqt;
>+ unsigned long addr_offset;
>+ unsigned long data;
>+ unsigned long mask;
>+
>+ do {
>+ if (pch_phub_suspended == true) {
>+ PCH_LOG(KERN_ERR, "pch_phub_ioctl : "
>+ "suspend initiated returning =%d\n",
>+ PCH_PHUB_FAIL);
>+ ret_value = PCH_PHUB_FAIL;
>+ break;
>+ }
Using the do { ... } while (0) construct in this way is not wrong,
but unconventional. The way this is normally done in Linux is to
have a goto target at the end.
The macros PCH_PHUB_SUCCESS and PCH_PHUB_FAIL should probably
be removed, because they are not standard error codes. By convention,
you should return 0 for success in ioctl or one of the errno.h
values for failure, as you do below.
>+ p_pch_phub_reqt = (struct pch_phub_reqt *)arg;
>+ ret_value =
>+ copy_from_user((void *)&addr_offset,
>+ (void *)&p_pch_phub_reqt->addr_offset,
>+ sizeof(addr_offset));
>+ if (ret_value) {
>+ PCH_LOG(KERN_ERR, "pch_phub_ioctl : "
>+ "copy_from_user fail returning =%d\n",
>+ -EFAULT);
>+ ret_value = -EFAULT;
>+ break;
>+ }
It is much easier to use get_user() here than copy_from_user.
The definition of struct pch_phub_reqt is problematic because
it contains members of type 'unsigned long'. This means that
a 32 bit user process uses a different data structure than a
64 bit kernel.
Ideally, you only pass a single integer as an ioctl argument.
There are cases where it needs to be a data structure, but
if that happens, you should only use members types like __u32
or __u64, not long or pointer.
>+ switch (cmd) {
>+ case IOCTL_PHUB_READ_REG:
>+ {
>+
>+ pch_phub_read_reg(addr_offset, &data);
>+ PCH_DEBUG("pch_phub_ioctl : Invoked "
>+ "pch_phub_read_reg successfully\n");
>+
>+ ret_value =
>+ copy_to_user((void *)&p_pch_phub_reqt->
>+ data, (void *)&data,
>+ sizeof(data));
>+ if (ret_value) {
>+ PCH_LOG(KERN_ERR, "pch_phub_ioctl : "
>+ "copy_to_user fail returning =%d\n",
>+ -EFAULT);
>+ ret_value = -EFAULT;
>+ break;
>+ }
>+ break;
>+ }
>+
>+ case IOCTL_PHUB_WRITE_REG:
>+ {
>+
>+ ret_value =
>+ copy_from_user((void *)&data,
>+ (void *)&p_pch_phub_reqt->
>+ data, sizeof(data));
>+ if (ret_value) {
>+ PCH_LOG(KERN_ERR, "pch_phub_ioctl : "
>+ "copy_from_user fail returning =%d\n",
>+ -EFAULT);
>+ ret_value = -EFAULT;
>+ break;
>+ }
>+ pch_phub_write_reg(addr_offset, data);
>+ PCH_DEBUG("pch_phub_ioctl : Invoked "
>+ "pch_phub_write_reg successfully\n");
>+ break;
>+ }
My feeling is that this ioctl interface is too
low-level in general. You only export access to specific
registers, not to functionality exposed by them.
The best kernel interfaces are defined in a way that
is independent of the underlying hardware and
convert generic commands into device specific commands.
If you really want to allow direct register access,
a simpler way would be to map the memory into the user
address space using the mmap() operation and not
provide any ioctl commands.
I don't see any range cheching on the addr_offset
argument, which means that a malicious user can use this
function to access not only your device, but any data
in the kernel address space.
Note that your open count does not protect the
hardware from concurrent access, because a file
descriptor can be shared by multiple user threads.
You can probably safely drop that count.
>+/*! @ingroup PHUB_InterfaceLayer
>+ @def IOCTL_PHUB_READ_REG
>+ @brief Outlines the read register function signature.
>+ */
>+#define IOCTL_PHUB_READ_REG (_IOW(PHUB_IOCTL_MAGIC, 1, unsigned long))
If I read your code correctly, you actually pass a struct pch_phub_reqt
argument, not an unsigned long argument, so this definition should be
changed accordingly. The same applies to the other ioctl commands.
Your patch continues in a second email, which is not how you normally
split submissions. When there is a logical separation between parts
of the driver, make multiple patches, each with a separate description
of what the patch does.
In case of this driver, that does not seem necessary. In fact, it seems
to me like it is simple enough to become a single source file, which
would simplify it even more because you no longer need header files
defining the interface between parts of the driver.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread