From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gretel.pobox.com (gretel.pobox.com [208.58.1.197]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24CB4DDEE7 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:45:05 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:29:56 -0600 From: Nathan Lynch To: Christian Krafft Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] pmi: initial version Message-ID: <20070209222956.GH1827@localdomain> References: <20070209183529.67d542d5@localhost> <20070209184530.4c8bc2be@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070209184530.4c8bc2be@localhost> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Christian- Some minor comments. Christian Krafft wrote: > This patch adds driver code for the PMI device found in future IBM products. > PMI stands for "Platform Management Interrupt" and is a way to communicate > with the BMC. It provides bidirectional communication with a low latency. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Krafft > > Index: linux/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > +++ linux/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > @@ -524,6 +524,7 @@ config PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE > select MMIO_NVRAM > select PPC_UDBG_16550 > select UDBG_RTAS_CONSOLE > +# select PPC_PMI Did you mean for this to be commented out? > +static void __iomem *of_iomap(struct device_node *np) > +{ > + struct resource res; > + > + if (of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res)) > + return NULL; > + > + pr_debug("Resource start: 0x%lx\n", res.start); > + pr_debug("Resource end: 0x%lx\n", res.end); You need a tab instead of spaces. > + > + return ioremap(res.start, 1 + res.end - res.start); > +} > + > +static int pmi_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + struct pmi_data *data; > + int type; > + struct pmi_handler *handler; > + > + data = dev_id; > + > + BUG_ON(!data); Not necessary, you'll oops in two lines anyway if data is NULL. > + > + pr_debug("pmi: got a PMI message\n"); > + > + spin_lock(&data->pmi_spinlock); > + type = ioread8(data->pmi_reg + PMI_READ_TYPE); > + spin_unlock(&data->pmi_spinlock); > + > + pr_debug("pmi: message type is %d\n", type); > + > + if (type & PMI_ACK) { > + BUG_ON(!data->msg); > + BUG_ON(!data->completion); > + pr_debug("pmi: got an ACK\n"); > + data->msg->type = type; > + data->msg->data0 = ioread8(data->pmi_reg + PMI_READ_DATA0); > + data->msg->data1 = ioread8(data->pmi_reg + PMI_READ_DATA1); > + data->msg->data2 = ioread8(data->pmi_reg + PMI_READ_DATA2); Should these accesses to data->pmi_reg be performed while holding data->pmi_spinlock as well? > + complete(data->completion); > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > + } > + > + spin_lock(&data->handler_spinlock); > + list_for_each_entry(handler, &data->handler, node) { > + pr_debug("pmi: notifying handlers\n"); > + if (handler->type == type) { > + pr_debug("pmi: notify handler %p\n", handler); > + handler->handle_pmi_message(data->dev, data->msg); > + } > + } > + spin_unlock(&data->handler_spinlock); > + > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > +} > + > + > +static struct of_device_id pmi_match[] = { > + { .type = "ibm,pmi", .name = "pmi" }, > + {}, > +}; > + > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pmi_match); > + > +static int pmi_of_probe(struct of_device *dev, > + const struct of_device_id *match) > +{ > + DEFINE_SPINLOCK(handler_spinlock); > + DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pmi_spinlock); > + > + struct device_node *np = dev->node; > + struct pmi_data *data; > + int rc; > + > + data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pmi_data), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!data) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "pmi: could not allocate memory.\n"); > + return -EFAULT; -ENOMEM is the appropriate error code here. > + } > + > + data->pmi_reg = of_iomap(np); > + > + if (!data->pmi_reg) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "pmi: invalid register address.\n"); > + kfree(data); > + return -EFAULT; > + } > + > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&data->handler); > + > + data->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0); > + if (data->irq == NO_IRQ) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "pmi: invalid interrupt.\n"); > + iounmap(data->pmi_reg); > + kfree(data); > + return -EFAULT; > + } > + > + data->handler_spinlock = handler_spinlock; > + data->pmi_spinlock = pmi_spinlock; > + > + rc = request_irq(data->irq, pmi_irq_handler, > + IRQF_SHARED, "pmi", data); > + if (rc) { > + printk(KERN_ERR "pmi: can't request IRQ %d: returned %d\n", > + data->irq, rc); > + iounmap(data->pmi_reg); > + kfree(data); Consider using goto to reduce duplication of the iounmap, kfree sequence. > + return -EFAULT; Just return rc; request_irq returns standard error codes. > +void pmi_send_message(struct of_device *device, struct pmi_message *msg) > +{ > + struct pmi_data *data; > + unsigned long flags; > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(completion); > + > + BUG_ON(!device || !msg); This BUG_ON is also unnecessary, and could actually make debugging more difficult since it wouldn't be immediately apparent which condition triggered it. > + > + data = device->dev.driver_data; > + pr_debug("pmi_send_message: data is %p\n", data); > + > + mutex_lock(&data->msg_mutex); > + > + data->msg = msg; > + > + pr_debug("pmi_send_message: msg is %p\n", msg); > + > + data->completion = &completion; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&data->pmi_spinlock, flags); > + iowrite8(msg->data0, data->pmi_reg + PMI_WRITE_DATA0); > + iowrite8(msg->data1, data->pmi_reg + PMI_WRITE_DATA1); > + iowrite8(msg->data2, data->pmi_reg + PMI_WRITE_DATA2); > + iowrite8(msg->type, data->pmi_reg + PMI_WRITE_TYPE); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&data->pmi_spinlock, flags); > + > + pr_debug(KERN_INFO "pmi_send_message: wait for completion %p\n", data->completion); > + > + wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(data->completion, PMI_TIMEOUT); > + > + data->msg = NULL; > + data->completion = NULL; > + > + mutex_unlock(&data->msg_mutex); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmi_send_message); ... > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmi_register_handler); ... > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pmi_unregister_handler); Are the symbol exports necessary? > +void pmi_register_handler(struct of_device *, struct pmi_handler *); > +void pmi_unregister_handler(struct of_device *, struct pmi_handler *); > + > +void pmi_send_message(struct of_device *, struct pmi_message *); Are there users of these functions?