On 12/7/20 12:02 AM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:55:54PM -0800, trix@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >From [PATCH 0/2] UIO support for dfl devices >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fpga/1602828151-24784-1-git-send-email-yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx/ > Why is this here? As reference, Yilun's work has precedence for a uio driver and this rfc is trying to address what i believe is a sticking point of the driver override. This rfc is some code i hacked out to show the idea and move uio support along. I would like to see uio support for at least the unclaimed feature id's because this would make it easier for them to be developed. >> Here is an idea to have uio support with no driver override. >> >> This makes UIO the primary driver interface because every feature >> will have one and makes the existing platform driver interface >> secondary. There will be a new burden for locking write access when >> they compete. >> >> Example shows finding the fpga's temperture. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rix <trix@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-main.c | 9 +++- >> drivers/fpga/dfl-uio.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/fpga/dfl.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++- >> drivers/fpga/dfl.h | 9 ++++ >> uio.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 drivers/fpga/dfl-uio.c >> create mode 100644 uio.c >> >> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-main.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-main.c >> index 037dc4f946f0..3323e90a18c4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-main.c >> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-fme-main.c >> @@ -709,12 +709,18 @@ static int fme_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> if (ret) >> goto dev_destroy; >> >> - ret = dfl_fpga_dev_ops_register(pdev, &fme_fops, THIS_MODULE); >> + ret = dfl_fpga_dev_feature_init_uio(pdev, DFH_TYPE_FIU); >> if (ret) >> goto feature_uinit; >> >> + ret = dfl_fpga_dev_ops_register(pdev, &fme_fops, THIS_MODULE); >> + if (ret) >> + goto feature_uinit_uio; >> + >> return 0; >> >> +feature_uinit_uio: >> + dfl_fpga_dev_feature_uinit_uio(pdev, DFH_TYPE_FIU); >> feature_uinit: >> dfl_fpga_dev_feature_uinit(pdev); >> dev_destroy: >> @@ -726,6 +732,7 @@ exit: >> static int fme_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> { >> dfl_fpga_dev_ops_unregister(pdev); >> + dfl_fpga_dev_feature_uinit_uio(pdev, DFH_TYPE_FIU); >> dfl_fpga_dev_feature_uinit(pdev); >> fme_dev_destroy(pdev); >> >> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-uio.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-uio.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..7610ee0b19dc >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-uio.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >> +/* >> + * prototype dfl uio driver >> + * >> + * Copyright Tom Rix 2020 >> + */ >> +#include <linux/module.h> >> +#include "dfl.h" >> + >> +static irqreturn_t dfl_uio_handler(int irq, struct uio_info *info) >> +{ >> + return IRQ_HANDLED; >> +} >> + >> +static int dfl_uio_mmap(struct uio_info *info, struct vm_area_struct *vma) >> +{ >> + int ret = -ENODEV; >> + return ret; > Did you run this through checkpatch? > > Does the code make sense? > >> +} >> + >> +static int dfl_uio_open(struct uio_info *info, struct inode *inode) >> +{ >> + int ret = -ENODEV; >> + struct dfl_feature *feature = container_of(info, struct dfl_feature, uio); >> + if (feature->dev) >> + mutex_lock(&feature->lock); >> + >> + ret = 0; >> + return ret; > Same here, does this make sense? > > And wait, you are having userspace grab a kernel lock? What could go > wrong? :( > Yes, this is the bad part of this idea. Tom >> +} >> + >> +static int dfl_uio_release(struct uio_info *info, struct inode *inode) >> +{ >> + int ret = -ENODEV; >> + struct dfl_feature *feature = container_of(info, struct dfl_feature, uio); >> + if (feature->dev) >> + mutex_unlock(&feature->lock); >> + >> + ret = 0; >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> +static int dfl_uio_irqcontrol(struct uio_info *info, s32 irq_on) >> +{ >> + int ret = -ENODEV; >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> +int dfl_uio_add(struct dfl_feature *feature) >> +{ >> + struct uio_info *uio = &feature->uio; >> + struct resource *res = >> + &feature->dev->resource[feature->resource_index]; >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + uio->name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "dfl-uio-%llx", feature->id); >> + if (!uio->name) { >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto exit; >> + } >> + >> + uio->version = "0.1"; >> + uio->mem[0].memtype = UIO_MEM_PHYS; >> + uio->mem[0].addr = res->start & PAGE_MASK; >> + uio->mem[0].offs = res->start & ~PAGE_MASK; >> + uio->mem[0].size = (uio->mem[0].offs + resource_size(res) >> + + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; >> + /* How are nr_irqs > 1 handled ??? */ >> + if (feature->nr_irqs == 1) >> + uio->irq = feature->irq_ctx[0].irq; >> + uio->handler = dfl_uio_handler; >> + //uio->mmap = dfl_uio_mmap; > ??? > > I don't understand what this patch is trying to show... > thanks, > > greg k-h >
