Re: [PATCH 2/2] memstick: add support for legacy memorysticks

[Maxim Levitsky]

On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 11:25 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: 
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c b/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..318e40b
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/memstick/core/ms_block.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,2422 @@
> > +/*
> > + *  ms_block.c - Sony MemoryStick (legacy) storage support
> > +
> 
> Missing '*'?
> 
> > + *  Copyright (C) 2012 Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + *
> > + * Minor portions of the driver were copied from mspro_block.c which is
> > + * Copyright (C) 2007 Alex Dubov <oakad@xxxxxxxxx>
> > + *
> > + */
> ...
> > +static size_t sg_copy(struct scatterlist *sg_from, struct scatterlist *sg_to,
> > +					int to_nents, size_t offset, size_t len)
> 
> Probably not the best idea to use a name this generic in driver code.
> linux/scatterlist.h likely might wanna use the name.
Lets not go this route again. I already once submitted these, and had
a share of problems with merging these poor functions into the scatter
list.
scatter list users mostly dont need these as they just translate it into
hardware specific representation.
In my case, I don't and yet its easier that working with BIOs. 
> 
> > +{
> > +	size_t copied = 0;
> > +
> > +	while (offset > 0) {
> > +
> > +		if (offset >= sg_from->length) {
> > +			if (sg_is_last(sg_from))
> > +				return 0;
> > +
> > +			offset -= sg_from->length;
> > +			sg_from = sg_next(sg_from);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		copied = min(len, sg_from->length - offset);
> > +		sg_set_page(sg_to, sg_page(sg_from),
> > +			copied, sg_from->offset + offset);
> > +
> > +		len -= copied;
> > +		offset = 0;
> > +
> > +		if (sg_is_last(sg_from) || !len)
> > +			goto out;
> > +
> > +		sg_to = sg_next(sg_to);
> > +		to_nents--;
> > +		sg_from = sg_next(sg_from);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	while (len > sg_from->length && to_nents--) {
> > +
> > +		len -= sg_from->length;
> > +		copied += sg_from->length;
> > +
> > +		sg_set_page(sg_to, sg_page(sg_from),
> > +				sg_from->length, sg_from->offset);
> > +
> > +		if (sg_is_last(sg_from) || !len)
> > +			goto out;
> > +
> > +		sg_from = sg_next(sg_from);
> > +		sg_to = sg_next(sg_to);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (len && to_nents) {
> > +		sg_set_page(sg_to, sg_page(sg_from), len, sg_from->offset);
> > +		copied += len;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	sg_mark_end(sg_to);
> > +	return copied;
> > +}
> 
> Also, from what it does, it seems sg_copy() is a bit of misnomer.
> Rename it to sg_remap_with_offset() or something and move it to
> lib/scatterlist.c?
Don't think so. This copies part of a scatter list into another
scatterlist.
I have to use is as memstick underlying drivers expect a single
scatterlist for each 512 bytes sector I read. Yes, it contains just one
entry, but still. I haven't designed the interface. 
> 
> > +/*
> > + * Compares section of 'sg' starting from offset 'offset' and with length 'len'
> > + * to linear buffer of length 'len' at address 'buffer'
> > + * Returns 0 if equal and  -1 otherwice
> > + */
> > +static int sg_compare_to_buffer(struct scatterlist *sg,
> > +					size_t offset, u8 *buffer, size_t len)
> > +{
> > +	int retval = 0;
> > +	struct sg_mapping_iter miter;
> > +
> > +	sg_miter_start(&miter, sg, sg_nents(sg),
> > +					SG_MITER_ATOMIC | SG_MITER_FROM_SG);
> > +
> > +	while (sg_miter_next(&miter) && len > 0) {
> > +
> > +		int cmplen;
> > +
> > +		if (offset >= miter.length) {
> > +			offset -= miter.length;
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		cmplen = min(miter.length - offset, len);
> > +		retval = memcmp(miter.addr + offset, buffer, cmplen) ? -1 : 0;
> > +		if (retval)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		buffer += cmplen;
> > +		len -= cmplen;
> > +		offset = 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!retval && len)
> > +		retval = -1;
> > +
> > +	sg_miter_stop(&miter);
> > +	return retval;
> > +}
> 
> Maybe we can make sg_copy_buffer() more generic so that it takes a
> callback and implement this on top of it?  Having sglist manipulation
> scattered isn't too attractive.
Again this is very specific to my driver. Usually nobody pokes the
scatterlists. 
> 
> ...
> > +/*
> > + * This function is a handler for reads of one page from device.
> > + * Writes output to msb->current_sg, takes sector address from msb->reg.param
> > + * Can also be used to read extra data only. Set params accordintly.
> > + */
> > +static int h_msb_read_page(struct memstick_dev *card,
> > +					struct memstick_request **out_mrq)
> > +{
> > +	struct msb_data *msb = memstick_get_drvdata(card);
> > +	struct memstick_request *mrq = *out_mrq = &card->current_mrq;
> > +	struct scatterlist sg[2];
> > +	u8 command, intreg;
> > +
> > +	if (mrq->error) {
> > +		dbg("read_page, unknown error");
> > +		return msb_exit_state_machine(msb, mrq->error);
> > +	}
> > +again:
> > +	switch (msb->state) {
> > +	case MSB_RP_SEND_BLOCK_ADDRESS:
> ...
> > +	case MSB_RP_SEND_READ_COMMAND:
> ...
> > +	case MSB_RP_SEND_INT_REQ:
> ...
> > +	case MSB_RP_RECEIVE_INT_REQ_RESULT:
> ...
> 
> Is it really necessary to implement explicit state machine?  Can't you
> just throw a work item at it and process it synchronously?  Explicit
> state machines can save some resources at the cost of a lot more
> complexity and generally making things a lot more fragile.  Is it
> really worth it here?
It would be awesome to not use these ugly state machines, but I have to,
because this is required by underlying driver interface.
Its callback driven, that is underlying driver calls into this driver,
when it wants, and I supply it new command to execute.
Unfortunately with legacy memsticks, to read or write a sector, one
needs to send it many different commands. Thats why these state
machines. I at least made them more or less consistent.
Just take a look at mspro_blk.c....

> 
> > +/* Registers the block device */
> > +static int msb_init_disk(struct memstick_dev *card)
> > +{
> > +	struct msb_data *msb = memstick_get_drvdata(card);
> > +	struct memstick_host *host = card->host;
> > +	int rc, disk_id;
> > +	u64 limit = BLK_BOUNCE_HIGH;
> > +	unsigned long capacity;
> > +
> > +	if (host->dev.dma_mask && *(host->dev.dma_mask))
> > +		limit = *(host->dev.dma_mask);
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&msb_disk_lock);
> > +
> > +	if (!idr_pre_get(&msb_disk_idr, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > +		mutex_unlock(&msb_disk_lock);
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rc = idr_get_new(&msb_disk_idr, card, &disk_id);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&msb_disk_lock);
> > +
> > +	if (rc)
> > +		return rc;
> > +
> > +	if ((disk_id << MS_BLOCK_PART_SHIFT) > 255) {
> > +		rc = -ENOSPC;
> > +		goto out_release_id;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	msb->disk = alloc_disk(1 << MS_BLOCK_PART_SHIFT);
> > +	if (!msb->disk) {
> > +		rc = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto out_release_id;
> > +	}
> 
> Unless you need fixed major:minor mapping (and you don't), you can
> simply leave disk->major, first_minor and minors zero and set
> GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT.  Block layer will automatically allocate device
> numbers dynamically as necessary.  No need to worry about MAJ:MIN.
Nice to know. This part I mostly copied from mspro driver. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
Best regards,
        Maxim Levitsky

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/