On 10/21/14 01:28, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hello LABBE, > > On 19.10.2014 17:16, LABBE Corentin wrote: >> Add support for the Security System included in Allwinner SoC A20. >> The Security System is a hardware cryptographic accelerator that support AES/MD5/SHA1/DES/3DES/PRNG algorithms. >> [] >> + >> + /* If we have only one SG, we can use kmap_atomic */ >> + if (sg_next(in_sg) == NULL && sg_next(out_sg) == NULL) >> + return sunxi_ss_aes_poll_atomic(areq); > > for clarity it might be better to move all "mutex_unlock(&ss->lock)" > calls from sunxi_ss_aes_poll_atomic() body right to here. > Ok I have moved all mutex_unlock/writel(0, SS_CTL) at the end of function, it is cleaner now. >> + >> +}; >> + >> +static int sunxi_ss_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> +{ >> + struct resource *res; >> + u32 v; >> + int err; >> + unsigned long cr; >> + const unsigned long cr_ahb = 24 * 1000 * 1000; >> + const unsigned long cr_mod = 150 * 1000 * 1000; >> + >> + if (!pdev->dev.of_node) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + ss = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*ss), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (ss == NULL) >> + return -ENOMEM; > > Why do you dynamically allocate memory for "struct sunxi_ss_ctx *ss"? > Since you have a single global pointer, it makes sense to declare > "struct sunxi_ss_ctx ss" statically instead. > > And even a better solution is to remove a single global pointer. All other crypto driver I have read use a global structure and it made things easy. Thanks to M. Ripard that pointed to me the talitos driver that solve the global device pointer by using alg template and container_of(). But since I think there will never 2 Security System at the same time on the same SoC, I do not know if it is worth the cost to add more complexity just to remove a pointer. > >> + >> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); >> + ss->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); >> + if (IS_ERR(ss->base)) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot request MMIO\n"); >> + return PTR_ERR(ss->base); >> + } >> + >> + ss->ssclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "mod"); >> + if (IS_ERR(ss->ssclk)) { >> + err = PTR_ERR(ss->ssclk); >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot get SS clock err=%d\n", err); >> + return err; >> + } >> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock ss acquired\n"); >> + >> + ss->busclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "ahb"); >> + if (IS_ERR(ss->busclk)) { >> + err = PTR_ERR(ss->busclk); >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot get AHB SS clock err=%d\n", err); >> + return err; >> + } >> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "clock ahb_ss acquired\n"); >> + >> + /* Enable both clocks */ >> + err = clk_prepare_enable(ss->busclk); >> + if (err != 0) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot prepare_enable busclk\n"); >> + return err; >> + } >> + err = clk_prepare_enable(ss->ssclk); >> + if (err != 0) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot prepare_enable ssclk\n"); >> + clk_disable_unprepare(ss->busclk); > > goto somewhere to the end of the function? OK > >> + return err; >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * Check that clock have the correct rates gived in the datasheet >> + * Try to set the clock to the maximum allowed >> + */ >> + err = clk_set_rate(ss->ssclk, cr_mod); >> + if (err != 0) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Cannot set clock rate to ssclk\n"); >> + clk_disable_unprepare(ss->ssclk); >> + clk_disable_unprepare(ss->busclk); > > goto "error_md5"? Ok > >> + return err; >> + } >> + >> + cr = clk_get_rate(ss->busclk); >> + if (cr >= cr_ahb) >> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Clock bus %lu (%lu MHz) (must be >= %lu)\n", >> + cr, cr / 1000000, cr_ahb); >> + else >> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Clock bus %lu (%lu MHz) (must be >= %lu)\n", >> + cr, cr / 1000000, cr_ahb); > > See next comment. > >> + cr = clk_get_rate(ss->ssclk); >> + if (cr <= cr_mod) >> + if (cr < cr_mod) >> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Clock ss %lu (%lu MHz) (must be <= %lu)\n", >> + cr, cr / 1000000, cr_mod); >> + else >> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Clock ss %lu (%lu MHz) (must be <= %lu)\n", >> + cr, cr / 1000000, cr_mod); >> + else >> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Clock ss is at %lu (%lu MHz) (must be <= %lu)\n", >> + cr, cr / 1000000, cr_mod); > > The management of kernel log levels looks pretty strange. As far as I > understand there is no error on any clock rate, I'd recommend to keep > only one information message. > If clock rate are below the recommended value, the only impact I found was bad performance. So it explain the warn and no error. (yes the info must be warn, ...fixed) But I will put comment for explain that. >> + /* >> + * Datasheet named it "Die Bonding ID" >> + * I expect to be a sort of Security System Revision number. >> + * Since the A80 seems to have an other version of SS >> + * this info could be useful >> + */ >> + writel(SS_ENABLED, ss->base + SS_CTL); >> + v = readl(ss->base + SS_CTL); >> + v >>= 16; >> + v &= 0x07; >> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Die ID %d\n", v); >> + writel(0, ss->base + SS_CTL); >> + >> + ss->dev = &pdev->dev; >> + >> + mutex_init(&ss->lock); >> + mutex_init(&ss->bufin_lock); >> + mutex_init(&ss->bufout_lock); >> + >> + err = crypto_register_ahash(&sunxi_md5_alg); >> + if (err) >> + goto error_md5; >> + err = crypto_register_ahash(&sunxi_sha1_alg); >> + if (err) >> + goto error_sha1; >> + err = crypto_register_algs(sunxi_cipher_algs, >> + ARRAY_SIZE(sunxi_cipher_algs)); >> + if (err) >> + goto error_ciphers; >> + >> + return 0; >> +error_ciphers: >> + crypto_unregister_ahash(&sunxi_sha1_alg); >> +error_sha1: >> + crypto_unregister_ahash(&sunxi_md5_alg); >> +error_md5: >> + clk_disable_unprepare(ss->ssclk); >> + clk_disable_unprepare(ss->busclk); >> + return err; >> +} >> + >> +static int __exit sunxi_ss_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> +{ >> + if (!pdev->dev.of_node) >> + return 0; > > Redundant check. > Ok > > > -- > With best wishes, > Vladimir > Thanks for the review -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html