Hi Zain, Am Freitag, 13. November 2015, 14:44:43 schrieb Zain: > > On 2015年11月12日 20:32, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > > Hi Zain, > > > > I was able to sucessfully test your crypto-driver, but have found some > > improvements below that should probably get looked at: > > > > Am Mittwoch, 11. November 2015, 14:35:58 schrieb Zain Wang: > >> Crypto driver support: > >> ecb(aes) cbc(aes) ecb(des) cbc(des) ecb(des3_ede) cbc(des3_ede) > >> You can alloc tags above in your case. > >> > >> And other algorithms and platforms will be added later on. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zain Wang <zain.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > [...] > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.c b/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..bb36baa > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,392 @@ [...] static void rk_crypto_action(void *data) { struct rk_crypto_info *crypto_info = data; reset_control_assert(crypto_info->rst); } > >> +static int rk_crypto_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> +{ > >> + struct resource *res; > >> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > >> + struct rk_crypto_info *crypto_info; > >> + int err = 0; > >> + > >> + crypto_info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, > >> + sizeof(*crypto_info), GFP_KERNEL); > >> + if (!crypto_info) { > >> + err = -ENOMEM; > >> + goto err_crypto; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "crypto-rst"); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->rst)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->rst); > >> + goto err_crypto; > >> + } > >> + > >> + reset_control_assert(crypto_info->rst); > >> + usleep_range(10, 20); > >> + reset_control_deassert(crypto_info->rst); err = devm_add_action(dev, rk_crypto_action, crypto_info); if (err) { reset_control_assert(crypto_info->rst); return err; } from here onwards the devm_action will always be executed when either _probe fails, or after remove finishes, so no need to assert the reset manually. > >> + > >> + spin_lock_init(&crypto_info->lock); > >> + > >> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); > >> + crypto_info->reg = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->reg)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->reg); > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->aclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "aclk"); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->aclk)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->aclk); > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->hclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "hclk"); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->hclk)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->hclk); > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->sclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sclk"); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->sclk)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->sclk); > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->dmaclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "apb_pclk"); > >> + if (IS_ERR(crypto_info->dmaclk)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(crypto_info->dmaclk); > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + crypto_info->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > >> + if (crypto_info->irq < 0) { > >> + dev_warn(crypto_info->dev, > >> + "control Interrupt is not available.\n"); > >> + err = crypto_info->irq; > >> + goto err_ioremap; > >> + } > >> + > >> + err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, crypto_info->irq, crypto_irq_handle, > >> + IRQF_SHARED, "rk-crypto", pdev); > > you are freeing the irq manually below and in _remove too. As it stands > > with putting the ip block in reset again on remove this should either loose > > the devm_ or you could add a devm_action that handles the reset assert > > like in [0] - registering the devm_action above where the reset is done. > > That way you could really use dev_request_irq and loose the free_irq > > calls here and in remove. > > > > [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/8/159 > I made a mistake here. I did not remove free_irq when using > devm_request_irq. > > As I do not konw enough about devm_action and reset-assert , can I > remove free_irq > simply like drivers/i2c/buses/i2c-sun6i-p2wi.c used devm_request_irq and > reset_assert? I did insert suitable code on how that could look a bit above :-) > > > > [...] > > > >> +static int rk_crypto_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> +{ > >> + struct rk_crypto_info *crypto_tmp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > >> + > >> + rk_crypto_unregister(); > >> + reset_control_assert(crypto_tmp->rst); > > mainly my comment from above applies, but in any case the reset-assert > > should definitly happen _after_ the tasklet is killed and the irq freed, > > to make sure nothing will want to access device-registers anymore. > > > > [devm works sequentially, so the devm_action would solve that automatically] > As I said above, it seem unnecessary to add devm_action. > > And if modification above is good, I will push tasklet_kill before > reset_control_assert in next version. I'm unsure ... but I guess if you move the reset-assert after the tasklet_kill it might be ok. > > > >> + tasklet_kill(&crypto_tmp->crypto_tasklet); > >> + free_irq(crypto_tmp->irq, crypto_tmp); > >> + > >> + return 0; > >> +} > > [...] > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.h b/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.h > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..b5b949a > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/crypto/rockchip/rk3288_crypto.h > >> @@ -0,0 +1,220 @@ > >> +#define _SBF(v, f) ((v) << (f)) > > you are using that macro in this header for simple value shifts like > > #define RK_CYYPTO_HASHINSEL_BLOCK_CIPHER_INPUT _SBF(0x01, 0) > > > > Removing that macro and doing the shift regularly without any macro, like > > #define RK_CYYPTO_HASHINSEL_BLOCK_CIPHER_INPUT (0x01 << 0) > > > > would improve future readability, because now you need to look up what > > the macro actually does and the _SBF macro also does not simplify anything. > > Also that name is quite generic so may conflict with something else easily. > Ok! Done! > > [...] > > > >> +#define CRYPTO_READ(dev, offset) \ > >> + readl_relaxed(((dev)->reg + (offset))) > >> +#define CRYPTO_WRITE(dev, offset, val) \ > >> + writel_relaxed((val), ((dev)->reg + (offset))) > >> +/* get register virt address */ > >> +#define CRYPTO_GET_REG_VIRT(dev, offset) ((dev)->reg + (offset)) > > same argument as above about readability of the code. What do these > > macros improve from just doing the readl and writel calls normally? > I am sorry that this macro is define for hash and not be used here. > because there are some continuous registers in hash, > I think we can use this macro with memcpy like > output = CRYPTO_GET_REG_VIRT(dev, RK_CRYPTO_HASH_DOUT_0); > memcpy(dev->ahash_req->result, output, > crypto_ahash_digestsize(tfm)); > instead of multiple readl. > > I will remove it in next version and add it to hash patch later on. I actuall meant all 3 of those macros :-) ... all of them just diguise what the code actually does, so don't provide additional value over just using readl_relaxed etc directly. Heiko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html