On 2015年11月15日 06:41, Heiko Stuebner wrote: > 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. I have known this function, rk_crypto_action will be executed next to either failed _probe, or _remove automatically. It also make sure reset_control_assert can be executed after tasklet_kill. OK! Done! > >>>> + >>>> + 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 :-) Thanks, done! > >>> [...] >>> >>>> +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. I guess I can remove it if I added code you provided above since reset-assert will be executed after _remove by rk_crypto_action. > >>>> + 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. Right. Thanks Zain -- 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