Re: [RFC v2 4/4] i3c: add i3cdev module to expose i3c dev in /dev

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 6:00 PM Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 14:30:56
>
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:17 PM Vitor Soares <Vitor.Soares@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > +
> > > +struct i3cdev_data {
> > > +       struct list_head list;
> > > +       struct i3c_device *i3c;
> > > +       struct cdev cdev;
> > > +       struct device *dev;
> > > +       int id;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static DEFINE_IDA(i3cdev_ida);
> > > +static dev_t i3cdev_number;
> > > +#define I3C_MINORS 16 /* 16 I3C devices supported for now */
> > > +
> > > +static LIST_HEAD(i3cdev_list);
> > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(i3cdev_list_lock);
> >
> > Please try to avoid arbitrarily limiting the number of devices you support.
>
> Should I use all minors range instead?

Yes, I'm fairly sure that if you use a dynamic major number, there
is no downside in using all of them.

> > Searching through the list feels a little clumsy. If the i3c user interface is
> > supposed to become a standard feature of the subsystem, it would seem
> > appropriate to put a pointer into the device to simplify the lookup,
>
> Do you mean i3c->dev ?

I was thinking you could add another member in i3c_device, next to ->dev.

> > or
> > just embed the cdev inside of i3c_device.
>
> I would prefer to have a pointer in i3c_device for i3cdev_data, but I see
> others using it in drvdata.

Ok, I think drvdata should work, but you should check that this is
correct when the device goes back between being bound to a device
driver and used through the chardev.

> >
> > > +static int
> > > +i3cdev_do_priv_xfer(struct i3c_device *dev, struct i3c_ioc_priv_xfer *xfers,
> > > +                   unsigned int nxfers)
> > > +{
> > > +       struct i3c_priv_xfer *k_xfers;
> > > +       u8 **data_ptrs;
> > > +       int i, ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > +       k_xfers = kcalloc(nxfers, sizeof(*k_xfers), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +       if (!k_xfers)
> > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +       data_ptrs = kcalloc(nxfers, sizeof(*data_ptrs), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +       if (!data_ptrs) {
> > > +               ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > +               goto err_free_k_xfer;
> > > +       }
> >
> > Maybe use a  combined allocation to simplify the error handling?
>
> Could you please provide an example?

Something like

       k_xfers = kcalloc(nxfers, sizeof(*k_xfers) +
sizeof(*data_ptrs), GFP_KERNEL);
       data_ptrs = (void *)k_xfers + (nxfers, sizeof(*k_xfers));

This would need a comment to explain the pointer math, but the resulting
object code is slightly simpler.

> > > +       /* Keep track of busses which have devices to add or remove later */
> > > +       res = bus_register_notifier(&i3c_bus_type, &i3c_notifier);
> > > +       if (res)
> > > +               goto out_unreg_class;
> > > +
> > > +       /* Bind to already existing device without driver right away */
> > > +       i3c_for_each_dev(NULL, i3cdev_attach);
> >
> > The combination of the notifier and searching through the devices
> > seems to be racy. What happens when a device appears just before
> > or during the i3c_for_each_dev() traversal?
>
> The i3c core is locked during this phase.

Ok.

> > What happens when a driver attaches to a device that is currently
> > transferring data on the user interface?
> >
>
> It may lost references for inode and file. I need to guarantee there no
> tranfer going on during the detach.
> Do you have any suggestion?

If the notifier is blocking, you could hold another mutex during the transfer
I think.

> > Is there any guarantee that the notifiers for attach and detach
> > are serialized?
> >
>
> Sorry I didn't get this part.

I think you answered this above: if the i3c code is locked while calling
the notifier, this cannot happen.

> > > +/**
> > > + * struct i3c_ioc_priv_xfer - I3C SDR ioctl private transfer
> > > + * @data: Holds pointer to userspace buffer with transmit data.
> > > + * @len: Length of data buffer buffers, in bytes.
> > > + * @rnw: encodes the transfer direction. true for a read, false for a write
> > > + */
> > > +struct i3c_ioc_priv_xfer {
> > > +       __u64 data;
> > > +       __u16 len;
> > > +       __u8 rnw;
> > > +       __u8 pad[5];
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +#define I3C_PRIV_XFER_SIZE(N)  \
> > > +       ((((sizeof(struct i3c_ioc_priv_xfer)) * (N)) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) \
> > > +       ? ((sizeof(struct i3c_ioc_priv_xfer)) * (N)) : 0)
> > > +
> > > +#define I3C_IOC_PRIV_XFER(N)   \
> > > +       _IOC(_IOC_READ|_IOC_WRITE, I3C_DEV_IOC_MAGIC, 30, I3C_PRIV_XFER_SIZE(N))
> >
> > This looks like a reasonable ioctl definition, avoiding the usual problems
> > with compat mode etc.
>
> Do you think I should add more reserved fields for future?

No, what I meant is that I like it the way it is.

     Arnd