Hi Geert,
Thank you for the patch. I'd still like to hear the device tree
maintainers' (added to Cc:) opinion on parsing the whole DT for "resets"
phandle properties to find shared resets like this.
On Thu, 2018-09-27 at 20:00 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> In some SoCs multiple hardware blocks may share a reset control.
> The reset control API for shared resets will only assert such a reset
> when the drivers for all hardware blocks agree.
> The exclusive reset control API still allows to assert such a reset, but
> that impacts all other hardware blocks sharing the reset.
>
> While the kernel doc comments clearly state that the API for shared
> resets applies to reset controls which are shared between hardware
> blocks, the exact meaning of exclusive resets is not documented.
> Fix the semantic ambiguity with respect to exclusive access vs.
> exclusive reset lines by:
> 1. Clarifying that exclusive resets really are intended for use with
> reset controls which are dedicated to a single hardware block,
> 2. Ensuring that obtaining an exclusive reset control will fail if the
> reset is shared by multiple hardware blocks, for both DT-based and
> lookup-based reset controls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
> ---
> This is v2 of "[RFC] reset: Add support for dedicated reset controls":
> - Fix wrong variable in __reset_is_dedicated() loop,
> - Add missing of_node_put() in __of_reset_is_dedicated(),
> - Document that exclusive reset controls imply they are dedicated to a
> single hardware block,
> - Drop new dedicated flag and new API reset_control_get_dedicated(),
> as exclusive already implies dedicated,
> - Rename {__of_,}reset_is_dedicated() to {__of_,}reset_is_exclusive(),
> - Reword description.
>
> Note: Exclusive lookup-based reset controls were not tested.
> ---
> drivers/reset/core.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/reset.h | 5 +++-
> 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c
> index 225e34c56b94a2e3..2f5b61226c7964eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/reset/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c
> @@ -459,6 +459,38 @@ static void __reset_control_put_internal(struct
> reset_control *rstc)
> kref_put(&rstc->refcnt, __reset_control_release);
> }
>
> +static bool __of_reset_is_exclusive(const struct device_node *node,
> + const struct of_phandle_args args)
> +{
> + struct of_phandle_args args2;
> + struct device_node *node2;
> + int index, ret;
> + bool eq;
I suppose it is very unlikely to get false positives where an arbitrary
node contains a "resets" property that looks like a proper phandle to an
actual reset-controller node.
Are we allowed though to scan the whole tree for "resets" properties
regardless of the nodes' bindings or compatible properties like this?
> + for_each_node_with_property(node2, "resets") {
> + if (node == node2)
> + continue;
> +
> + for (index = 0; ; index++) {
> + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(node2, "resets",
> + "#reset-cells", index,
> + &args2);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> +
> + eq = (args2.np == args.np &&
> + args2.args_count == args.args_count &&
> + !memcmp(args2.args, args.args,
> + args.args_count * sizeof(args.args[0])));
> + of_node_put(args2.np);
> + if (eq)
Emitting a loud warning here could be very helpful if it contains
both the reset controller node and the reset index, as well as the
consumer nodes: node and node2.
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> struct reset_control *__of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node,
> const char *id, int index, bool shared,
> bool optional)
> @@ -514,6 +546,11 @@ struct reset_control *__of_reset_control_get(struct
> device_node *node,
> return ERR_PTR(rstc_id);
> }
>
> + if (!shared && !__of_reset_is_exclusive(node, args)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&reset_list_mutex);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> /* reset_list_mutex also protects the rcdev's reset_control list */
> rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, shared);
>
> @@ -541,6 +578,22 @@ __reset_controller_by_name(const char *name)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static bool __reset_is_exclusive(const struct reset_control_lookup *lookup)
> +{
> + const struct reset_control_lookup *lookup2;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(lookup2, &reset_lookup_list, list) {
> + if (lookup2 == lookup)
> + continue;
> +
> + if (lookup2->provider == lookup->provider &&
> + lookup2->index == lookup->index)
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static struct reset_control *
> __reset_control_get_from_lookup(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> bool shared, bool optional)
> @@ -562,6 +615,11 @@ __reset_control_get_from_lookup(struct device *dev,
> const char *con_id,
> if ((!con_id && !lookup->con_id) ||
> ((con_id && lookup->con_id) &&
> !strcmp(con_id, lookup->con_id))) {
> + if (!shared && !__reset_is_exclusive(lookup)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&reset_lookup_mutex);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> mutex_lock(&reset_list_mutex);
> rcdev = __reset_controller_by_name(lookup->provider);
> if (!rcdev) {
> diff --git a/include/linux/reset.h b/include/linux/reset.h
> index 29af6d6b2f4b8103..5881d2594761e48f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/reset.h
> +++ b/include/linux/reset.h
> @@ -116,8 +116,11 @@ static inline int device_reset_optional(struct device
> *dev)
> * @id: reset line name
> *
> * Returns a struct reset_control or IS_ERR() condition containing errno.
> - * If this function is called more than once for the same reset_control it
> will
> + * If this function is called more than once for the same reset control it
> will
> * return -EBUSY.
> + * This function is intended for use with reset controls which are dedicated
> + * to a single hardware block. If called for a reset control shared among
> + * multiple hardware blocks, it will return -EINVAL.
> *
> * See reset_control_get_shared for details on shared references to
> * reset-controls.
regards
Philipp
