Re: [PATCH 1/9] crypto: qce: Add core driver implementation

[Stanimir Varbanov]

Hi Josh,

Thanks for the comments!

On 04/03/2014 09:19 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> Hey Stanimir-
> 
> Just a few comments/questions from a quick scan of your patchset:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 07:17:58PM +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> [..]
>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.c
> [..]
>> +
>> +static struct qce_algo_ops qce_ops[] = {
>> +	{
>> +		.type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_ABLKCIPHER,
>> +		.register_alg = qce_ablkcipher_register,
>> +	},
>> +	{
>> +		.type = CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH,
>> +		.register_alg = qce_ahash_register,
>> +	},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void qce_unregister_algs(struct qce_device *qce)
>> +{
>> +	struct qce_alg_template *tmpl, *n;
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(tmpl, n, &qce->alg_list, entry) {
>> +		if (tmpl->crypto_alg_type == CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_AHASH)
>> +			crypto_unregister_ahash(&tmpl->alg.ahash);
>> +		else
>> +			crypto_unregister_alg(&tmpl->alg.crypto);
> 
> Why no 'unregister_alg' member in qce_algo_ops?

Because we have a common unregister function :). We have common
unregster function because in my opinion there is no need to copy the
same piece of code on every algorithm file (ablkcipher.c, sha.c and one
or two more could be added in the future). Something more, I'm not the
inventor of this asymmetric calling convention in driver internals, it
is widely spread in crypto drivers. So, I'm just have been inspired by
this idea, and giving that I personally do not like the monotonic and
linear  coding thus it was easy to me to borrow it.

> 
>> +
>> +		list_del(&tmpl->entry);
>> +		kfree(tmpl);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int qce_register_algs(struct qce_device *qce)
>> +{
>> +	struct qce_algo_ops *ops;
>> +	int i, rc = -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(qce_ops); i++) {
>> +		ops = &qce_ops[i];
>> +		ops->async_req_queue = qce_async_request_queue;
>> +		ops->async_req_done = qce_async_request_done;
> 
> Why not set these statically?

To save few lines of code. If this breaks readability I could move those
function pointers to the qce_ops[].

> 
>> +		rc = ops->register_alg(qce, ops);
>> +		if (rc)
>> +			break;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		qce_unregister_algs(qce);
>> +
>> +	return rc;
>> +}
> [..]
>> +static int qce_get_version(struct qce_device *qce)
>> +{
>> +	u32 major, minor, step;
>> +	u32 val;
>> +
>> +	val = readl(qce->base + REG_VERSION);
>> +	major = (val & CORE_MAJOR_REV_MASK) >> CORE_MAJOR_REV;
>> +	minor = (val & CORE_MINOR_REV_MASK) >> CORE_MINOR_REV;
>> +	step = (val & CORE_STEP_REV_MASK) >> CORE_STEP_REV;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * the driver does not support v5 with minor 0 because it has special
>> +	 * alignment requirements.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (major < QCE_MAJOR_VERSION5 && minor == 0)
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +	qce->burst_size = QCE_BAM_BURST_SIZE;
>> +	qce->pipe_pair_index = 1;
>> +
>> +	dev_info(qce->dev, "Crypto device found, version %d.%d.%d\n",
>> +		 major, minor, step);
> 
> I'd suggest dev_dbg().  Kernel boot is chatty enough.

OK.

> 
> [..]
>> +static int qce_clks_enable(struct qce_device *qce, int enable)
>> +{
>> +	int rc = 0;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < QCE_CLKS_NUM; i++) {
>> +		if (enable)
>> +			rc = clk_prepare_enable(qce->clks[i]);
>> +		else
>> +			clk_disable_unprepare(qce->clks[i]);
>> +
>> +		if (rc)
>> +			break;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		do
>> +			clk_disable_unprepare(qce->clks[i]);
>> +		while (--i >= 0);
>> +
>> +	return rc;
>> +}
> 
> See my below comment about lumping clocks together.
> 
> [..]
>> +static int qce_crypto_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct qce_device *qce = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +	cancel_work_sync(&qce->queue_work);
>> +	destroy_workqueue(qce->queue_wq);
>> +	tasklet_kill(&qce->done_tasklet);
>> +	qce_unregister_algs(qce);
>> +	qce_dma_release(&qce->dma);
>> +	qce_clks_enable(qce, 0);
> 
> qce_clks_enable(qce, 0) is really confusing....I'd suggest creating
> separate qce_clks_enable() and qce_clks_disable() functions.
> 

OK will do.

> [..]
>> +static const struct of_device_id qce_crypto_of_match[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,crypto-v5.1", },
>> +	{}
>> +};
> 
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE()?

Good catch. Thanks.

> 
> [..]
>> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qce/core.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2010-2014, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
>> + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _CORE_H_
>> +#define _CORE_H_
>> +
>> +static const char * const clk_names[] = {
>> +	"core",		/* GCC_CE_CLK */
>> +	"iface",	/* GCC_CE_AHB_CLK */
>> +	"bus",		/* GCC_CE_AXI_CLK */
>> +};
> 
> You probably don't want this in a header file, as now each compilation
> unit will have a copy :(.

It is my fault, I just forgot to move this array in the core.c.

> 
> Lumping all the clocks together assumes that you will only ever have all
> clocks enabled, or all clocks disabled, are you sure that's what you
> want?

At least until now all clocks are needed. When adding power management
this code should be revised.

> 
> [..]
>> +struct qce_algo_ops {
>> +	u32 type;
>> +	int (*register_alg)(struct qce_device *qce, struct qce_algo_ops *ops);
>> +	int (*async_req_queue)(struct qce_device *qce,
>> +			       struct crypto_async_request *req);
>> +	void (*async_req_done)(struct qce_device *qce, int ret);
> 
> What is the relationship between qce_algo_ops and the qce_alg_template
> (which has these same two identically named callbacks)?

This is a way of passing function pointers from core.c to the
ablkcipher.c and sha.c (where they are needed to queue up new crypto
async requests and finish the requests with done counterpart). This
avoids prototyping those core.c functions and calling them directly.

-- 
regards,
Stan
--
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/