Re: [PATCH 01/16] pata_parport: add core driver (PARIDE replacement)

From: Sergey Shtylyov
Date: Mon Mar 07 2022 - 14:50:22 EST

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCHv4 0/8] 64-bit data integrity field support"
Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCHv4 0/8] 64-bit data integrity field support"
In reply to: Damien Le Moal: "Re: [PATCH 01/16] pata_parport: add core driver (PARIDE replacement)"
Next in thread: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [RFC PATCH] pata_parport: paride replacement"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hello!

On 3/5/22 11:13 PM, Ondrej Zary wrote:

> Add pata_parport (PARIDE replacement) core libata driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/ata/Kconfig | 25 +
> drivers/ata/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/ata/pata_parport/Kconfig | 10 +
> drivers/ata/pata_parport/Makefile | 9 +
> drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c | 809 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.h | 110 ++++

I'd like to suggest to just name the new subdirectory 'parport'.
And it looks like I'll need to update my MAINTAINBERS entry to include this driver... :-)

[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7f814062cedd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,809 @@
[...]
> +static bool probe = 1;

s/1/true/.

[...]
> +/* functions taken from libata-sff.c and converted from direct port I/O */
> +static unsigned int pata_parport_devchk(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int device)

Should return bool now, see e.g..:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dlemoal/libata.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=1336aa88d8553292604878c53538297fbc65bf0a

> +{
> + struct pi_adapter *pi = ap->host->private_data;
> + u8 nsect, lbal;
> +
> + ap->ops->sff_dev_select(ap, device);

Could call your sff-dev_select() methid directly here?

[...]
> +static int pata_parport_bus_softreset(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int devmask,
> + unsigned long deadline)
> +{
> + struct pi_adapter *pi = ap->host->private_data;
> +
> + pi_connect(pi);
> + /* software reset. causes dev0 to be selected */
> + pi->proto->write_regr(pi, 1, 6, ap->ctl);
> + udelay(20); /* FIXME: flush */

I don't think this FIXME applies to your driver...

[...]
> +static int pata_parport_softreset(struct ata_link *link, unsigned int *classes,
> + unsigned long deadline)
> +{
> + struct ata_port *ap = link->ap;
> + unsigned int slave_possible = ap->flags & ATA_FLAG_SLAVE_POSS;

Isn't this flag always set in your driver?

> + unsigned int devmask = 0;
> + int rc;
> + u8 err;
> +
> + /* determine if device 0/1 are present */
> + if (pata_parport_devchk(ap, 0))
> + devmask |= (1 << 0);
> + if (slave_possible && pata_parport_devchk(ap, 1))
> + devmask |= (1 << 1);
> +
> + /* select device 0 again */
> + ap->ops->sff_dev_select(ap, 0);

Again, could you call this directly?

> +
> + /* issue bus reset */
> + rc = pata_parport_bus_softreset(ap, devmask, deadline);
> + /* if link is occupied, -ENODEV too is an error */
> + if (rc && (rc != -ENODEV || sata_scr_valid(link))) {

It's a PATA driver, why call sata_scr_valid() at all?

[...]
> +static void pata_parport_dev_select(struct ata_port *ap, unsigned int device)
> +{
> + struct pi_adapter *pi = ap->host->private_data;
> + u8 tmp;
> +
> + pi_connect(pi);

Why not call it after this *if*?

> + if (device == 0)
> + tmp = ATA_DEVICE_OBS;
> + else
> + tmp = ATA_DEVICE_OBS | ATA_DEV1;
> +
> + pi->proto->write_regr(pi, 0, ATA_REG_DEVICE, tmp);
> + pi_disconnect_later(pi);
> + ata_sff_pause(ap); /* needed; also flushes, for mmio */

Does this comment make sense in your driver?

[...]
> +static void pata_parport_tf_read(struct ata_port *ap, struct ata_taskfile *tf)
> +{
> + struct pi_adapter *pi = ap->host->private_data;
> +
> + pi_connect(pi);
> + tf->command = pi->proto->read_regr(pi, 0, ATA_REG_STATUS);

Use tf->status please, see:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dlemoal/libata.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=efcef265fd83d9a68a68926abecb3e1dd3e260a8

> + tf->feature = pi->proto->read_regr(pi, 0, ATA_REG_ERR);

Use tf->error as well please.

[...]
> +static void pata_parport_lost_interrupt(struct ata_port *ap)
> +{
> + u8 status;
> + struct ata_queued_cmd *qc;
> +
> + /* Only one outstanding command per SFF channel */
> + qc = ata_qc_from_tag(ap, ap->link.active_tag);
> + /* We cannot lose an interrupt on a non-existent or polled command */
> + if (!qc || qc->tf.flags & ATA_TFLAG_POLLING)
> + return;
> + /* See if the controller thinks it is still busy - if so the command
> + isn't a lost IRQ but is still in progress */
> + status = pata_parport_check_altstatus(ap);
> + if (status & ATA_BUSY)
> + return;
> +
> + /* There was a command running, we are no longer busy and we have
> + no interrupt. */
> + ata_port_warn(ap, "lost interrupt (Status 0x%x)\n", status);
> + /* Run the host interrupt logic as if the interrupt had not been lost */
> + ata_sff_port_intr(ap, qc);
> +}

Hm, it looks like ata_sff_lost_interrupt() could be used instead...

> +
> +static struct ata_port_operations pata_parport_port_ops = {

Maybe inherit from ata_sff_port_ops?

[...]
> +static int default_test_proto(struct pi_adapter *pi, char *scratch)
> +{
> + int j, k;
> + int e[2] = { 0, 0 };
> +
> + pi->proto->connect(pi);
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
> + pi->proto->write_regr(pi, 0, 6, 0xa0 + j * 0x10);
> + for (k = 0; k < 256; k++) {
> + pi->proto->write_regr(pi, 0, 2, k ^ 0xaa);
> + pi->proto->write_regr(pi, 0, 3, k ^ 0x55);
> + if (pi->proto->read_regr(pi, 0, 2) != (k ^ 0xaa))
> + e[j]++;
> + }
> + }
> + pi->proto->disconnect(pi);
> +
> + if (verbose)
> + dev_info(&pi->dev, "%s: port 0x%x, mode %d, test=(%d,%d)\n",

Whyu 2 spaces after "mode"?

> + pi->proto->name, pi->port,
> + pi->mode, e[0], e[1]);
> +
> + return (e[0] && e[1]); /* not here if both > 0 */

No need for parens.

> +}

This function kinda duplicates pata_parport_devchk()? :-)

[...]
> +static int pi_probe_mode(struct pi_adapter *pi, int max, char *scratch)
> +{
> + int best, range;
> +
> + if (pi->mode != -1) {
> + if (pi->mode >= max)
> + return 0;
> + range = 3;
> + if (pi->mode >= pi->proto->epp_first)
> + range = 8;
> + if ((range == 8) && (pi->port % 8))

No need for inner parens...

> + return 0;
> + return (!pi_test_proto(pi, scratch));

No need for outer parens, this time... :-)

> + }
> + best = -1;
> + for (pi->mode = 0; pi->mode < max; pi->mode++) {
> + range = 3;
> + if (pi->mode >= pi->proto->epp_first)
> + range = 8;
> + if ((range == 8) && (pi->port % 8))

No need for inner parens...

> + break;
> + if (!pi_test_proto(pi, scratch))
> + best = pi->mode;
> + }
> + pi->mode = best;
> + return (best > -1);

No need for parens...

> +}
> +
> +

Isn't one empty line enough?

> +static int pi_probe_unit(struct pi_adapter *pi, int unit, char *scratch)

Looks like it's worth making this function return bool?

[...]
> +static ssize_t new_device_store(struct bus_type *bus, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + char port[12] = "auto";
> + char protocol[8] = "auto";
> + int mode = -1, unit = -1, delay = -1;
> + struct pi_protocol *pr, *pr_wanted;
> + struct device_driver *drv;
> + struct parport *parport;
> + int port_num, port_wanted, pr_num;
> + bool ok = false;
> +
> + if (sscanf(buf, "%11s %7s %d %d %d",
> + port, protocol, &mode, &unit, &delay) < 1)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (sscanf(port, "parport%u", &port_wanted) < 1) {
> + if (!strcmp(port, "auto"))
> + port_wanted = -1;
> + else {

Need {} on both branches.

> + pr_err("invalid port name %s\n", port);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + drv = driver_find(protocol, &pata_parport_bus_type);
> + if (!drv) {
> + if (!strcmp(protocol, "auto"))
> + pr_wanted = NULL;
> + else {

Same here.

> + pr_err("protocol %s not found\n", protocol);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else

And here.

> + pr_wanted = container_of(drv, struct pi_protocol, driver);
[...]
> +static ssize_t delete_device_store(struct bus_type *bus, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + struct device *dev;
> + char device_name[32];
> + int fields;
> +
> + fields = sscanf(buf, "%31s", device_name);
> + if (fields < 1)

Strange variable name where you expect only one field... And you don't even
use it after this check, so hardly needed at all...

[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.h b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c4201b809b20
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_parport/pata_parport.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * paride.h (c) 1997-8 Grant R. Guenther <grant@xxxxxxxxxx>

Doesn't match the file name anymore...

> + * Under the terms of the GPL.
> + *
> + * This file defines the interface for adapter chip drivers.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/libata.h>
> +
> +struct pi_adapter {
> + struct device dev;
> + struct pi_protocol *proto; /* adapter protocol */
> + int port; /* base address of parallel port */
> + int mode; /* transfer mode in use */
> + int delay; /* adapter delay setting */
> + int unit; /* unit number for chained adapters */
> + int saved_r0; /* saved port state */
> + int saved_r2; /* saved port state */
> + unsigned long private; /* for protocol module */
> + struct pardevice *pardev; /* pointer to pardevice */
> + int claimed; /* parport has already been claimed */

Use bool instead?

> + struct timer_list timer; /* disconnect timer */
> +};
> +
> +/* registers are addressed as (cont,regr)
> + * cont: 0 for command register file, 1 for control register(s)
> + * regr: 0-7 for register number.
> + */
> +
> +/* macros and functions exported to the protocol modules */
> +#define delay_p (pi->delay ? udelay(pi->delay) : (void)0)
> +#define out_p(offs, byte) do { outb(byte, pi->port + offs); delay_p; } while (0)
> +#define in_p(offs) (delay_p, inb(pi->port + offs))

Hm, why not pass pi as an extra parameter?

> +
> +#define w0(byte) out_p(0, byte)
> +#define r0() (in_p(0) & 0xff)

Why mask the result of inb()?

> +#define w1(byte) out_p(1, byte)
> +#define r1() (in_p(1) & 0xff)
> +#define w2(byte) out_p(2, byte)
> +#define r2() (in_p(2) & 0xff)
> +#define w3(byte) out_p(3, byte)
> +#define w4(byte) out_p(4, byte)
> +#define r4() (in_p(4) & 0xff)
> +#define w4w(data) do { outw(data, pi->port + 4); delay_p; } while (0)
> +#define w4l(data) do { outl(data, pi->port + 4); delay_p; } while (0)
> +#define r4w() (delay_p, inw(pi->port + 4) & 0xffff)
> +#define r4l() (delay_p, inl(pi->port + 4) & 0xffffffff)

Again, why mask these?

> +
> +static inline u16 pi_swab16(char *b, int k)
> +{
> + union { u16 u; char t[2]; } r;
> +
> + r.t[0] = b[2 * k + 1]; r.t[1] = b[2 * k];
> + return r.u;

Hm, swab16() instead?

> +}
> +
> +static inline u32 pi_swab32(char *b, int k)
> +{
> + union { u32 u; char f[4]; } r;
> +
> + r.f[0] = b[4 * k + 1]; r.f[1] = b[4 * k];
> + r.f[2] = b[4 * k + 3]; r.f[3] = b[4 * k + 2];
> + return r.u;

And swab32() here instead?

> +}
[...]

MNR, Sergey

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCHv4 0/8] 64-bit data integrity field support"
Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: [PATCHv4 0/8] 64-bit data integrity field support"
In reply to: Damien Le Moal: "Re: [PATCH 01/16] pata_parport: add core driver (PARIDE replacement)"
Next in thread: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [RFC PATCH] pata_parport: paride replacement"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]