LDT - Linux Driver Template
PATCH 1/1 LDT - Linux Driver Template
From: Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>
LDT is useful for Linux driver development beginners,
hackers and as starting point for a new drivers.
The driver uses following Linux facilities: module, platform driver, file operations (read/write, mmap, ioctl, blocking and nonblocking mode, polling), kfifo, completion, interrupt, tasklet, work, kthread, timer, simple misc device, multiple char devices, Device Model, configfs, UART 0x3f8,
HW loopback, SW loopback, ftracer.
--- samples/Kconfig | 14 + samples/Makefile | 5 +- samples/ltd/Makefile | 1 + samples/ltd/ldt.c | 764 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c | 68 ++++ tools/testing/ldt/Makefile | 6 + tools/testing/ldt/ctracer.h | 380 +++++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/ldt/dio.c | 362 ++++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/ldt/ldt-test | 142 ++++++++ 9 files changed, 1740 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 samples/ltd/Makefile create mode 100644 samples/ltd/ldt.c create mode 100644 samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/Makefile create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/ctracer.h create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/dio.c create mode 100755 tools/testing/ldt/ldt-test
samples/Kconfig +14 -0
@@ -69,4 +69,18 @@ config SAMPLE_RPMSG_CLIENT to communicate with an AMP-configured remote processor over the rpmsg bus. +config SAMPLE_DRIVER_TEMPLATE + tristate "LDT - Linux driver template" + help + Template of Linux device driver. Useful for Linux driver + development beginners, hackers and as starting point for a new drivers. + The driver uses following Linux facilities: module, platform driver, + file operations (read/write, mmap, ioctl, blocking and nonblocking mode, polling), + kfifo, completion, interrupt, tasklet, work, kthread, timer, simple misc device, + multiple char devices, Device Model, configfs, UART 0x3f8, HW loopback, + SW loopback, ftracer. + Usermode test script and utility are located in tools/testing/ldt/ + + List of more samples and skeletons can be found at http://elinux.org/Device_drivers + endif # SAMPLES
samples/Makefile +3 -2
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ # Makefile for Linux samples code -obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += kobject/ kprobes/ tracepoints/ trace_events/ \ - hw_breakpoint/ kfifo/ kdb/ hidraw/ rpmsg/ seccomp/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += kobject/ kprobes/ tracepoints/ trace_events/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += hw_breakpoint/ kfifo/ kdb/ hidraw/ rpmsg/ seccomp/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += ldt/
samples/ltd/Makefile new file +1 -0
@@ -0,0 +1 @@ +obj-$(SAMPLE_DRIVER_TEMPLATE)+= ldt.o ldt_plat_dev.o
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +764 -0
764 lines not on this page · raw message
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +68 -0
68 lines not on this page · raw message
tools/testing/ldt/Makefile new file +6 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +all: dio + +dio: CPPFLAGS+=-g -D CTRACER_ON + +clean: + rm -rf dio *.o dio *.tmp *.log
tools/testing/ldt/ctracer.h new file +380 -0
380 lines not on this page · raw message
tools/testing/ldt/dio.c new file +362 -0
362 lines not on this page · raw message
tools/testing/ldt/ldt-test new file +142 -0
142 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 6
Quoted 8 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
+++
b/samples/ltd/ldt.csamples/ltd/ldt.c new file +6
-0@@ -0,0 +1,764 @@ +/* +* LDT - Linux Driver Template +* +* Copyright (C) 2012 Constantine Shulyupin http://www.makelinux.net/ +* +* Dual BSD/GPL License
That makes no sense for Linux-specific kernel code, why would you want it to be dual licensed? Please fix this.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 30
Quoted 1 line
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +1
-0+* Device Model (class, device)
Don't use class code in an example, it is slowly going away from the whole kernel.
Review line 9
Quoted 2 lines
(quoted diff) +2
-0+#define ctracer_cut_path(fn) (fn[0] != '/' ? fn : (strrchr(fn, '/') + 1)) +#define __file__ ctracer_cut_path(__FILE__)
Why is this needed?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 70
Quoted 8 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +8
-0+/* +* print_context prints execution context: +* hard interrupt, soft interrupt or scheduled task +*/ + +#define print_context () \ + pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s 0x%x\n", __file__, __LINE__, __func__, \ + (in_irq() ? "harirq" : current->comm), preempt_count());
Ick, no, never do that.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 73
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define once (exp) do { \ + static int _passed; if (!_passed) { exp; }; _passed = 1; } while (0)
We have macros for this already.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 77
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+#define check (a) \ + (ret = a, ((ret < 0) ? pr_warning("%s:%i %s FAIL\n\t%i=%s\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, ret, #a) : 0), ret)
Why?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 80
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define pr_debug_hex (h) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = 0x%lX\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #h, (long int)h)
This is not needed at all, just use the proper printk() attribute.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 82
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define pr_debug_dec (d) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = %ld\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #d, (long int)d)
Why?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 84
Quoted 1 line
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +1
-0+#define pr_err_msg (m) pr_err("%s:%d %s %s\n", __file__, __LINE__, __func__, m)
Again, why?
Please don't create your own debugging macros, otherwise people will copy them. Use the in-kernel ones, as they are the ones everyone should use. And never use the __file__ things, that looks horrible when building a kernel and makes no sense.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 87
Quoted 1 line
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +1
-0+static char ldt_name[] =KBUILD_MODNAME ;
Why not just use the macro itself?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 88
Quoted 1 line
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +1
-0+static int bufsize =PFN_ALIGN (16 *1024 );
Why align?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 92
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+static void *in_buf; +static void *out_buf; +static int uart_detected; +void *port_ptr;
Not static? I'm guessing you didn't run this through sparse?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 103
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+static int port; +module_param (port, int,0 ); +static int port_size; +module_param (port_size, int,0 ); + +static int irq; +module_param (irq, int,0 ); + +static int loopback; +module_param (loopback, int,0 );
No descriptions? Not good.
I've stopped here, I think this has a bunch more work in order to be a "correct" example in the kernel source tree.
Review line 44
Quoted 1 line
(quoted diff) +1
-0+MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
Note that modules that touch driver core functions, like this one, can't really be BSD licensed, sorry.
greg k-h
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ * Device Model (class, device)
Don't use class code in an example, it is slowly going away from the whole kernel.
What to use instead class_create and device_create?
Thank you.
Quoted 4 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ * Device Model (class, device)
Don't use class code in an example, it is slowly going away from the whole kernel.
What to use instead
class_createanddevice_create?
What are you trying to do?
Quoted 7 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 4 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ * Device Model (class, device)
Don't use class code in an example, it is slowly going away from the whole kernel.
What to use instead
class_createanddevice_create?What are you trying to do?
I trying to properly register char device and device region. Single char device could be registered as misc device with just misc_register. How to register properly char devices region?
Should to use device_register instead device_create to create dev files? Which other registration functions char device must to call besides alloc_chrdev_region, cdev_add?
Quoted 11 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 7 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 4 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ * Device Model (class, device)
Don't use class code in an example, it is slowly going away from the whole kernel.
What to use instead
class_createanddevice_create?What are you trying to do?
I trying to properly register char device and device region. Single char device could be registered as misc device with just
misc_register.
When you do that, the struct device is automatically registered with the system, why do you need to do it again?
Quoted 1 line
How to register properly char devices region?
Using the proper calls, which are not the misc_register ones :)
Quoted 1 line
Should to use
device_registerinsteaddevice_createto create dev files?
Depends on what you want to do :)
Quoted 2 lines
Which other registration functions char device must to call besides
alloc_chrdev_region,cdev_add?
Again, I think you are mixing two different things here. You can't mix the char interface with the misc_register interface, they don't play well, it's either one or the other.
Now I agree using the char interface isn't the most "obvious" and I have a set of ideas/half-baked patches floating around that aim to clean it up, but for now, I'd recommend just using the misc interface, it's worlds simpler, makes sense, and handles all of the struct device work for you automatically.
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 5 lines
Now I agree using the char interface isn't the most "obvious" and I have a set of ideas/half-baked patches floating around that aim to clean it up, but for now, I'd recommend just using the misc interface, it's worlds simpler, makes sense, and handles all of the struct device work for you automatically.
OK. Thanks.
Originally I've used only misc device and introduced dev region up on request. But it makes code too complicated.
I also prefer to use only misc device in LDT.
Thank you
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 80
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define pr_debug_hex (h) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = 0x%lX\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #h, (long int)h)This is not needed at all, just use the proper
printk()attribute.
Macro above allows tidy tracing code:
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR));
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));Without that macro, code above should be rewritten with pr_debug (or printk) as:
pr_debug("UART_IER=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER));
pr_debug("UART_IIR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR));
pr_debug("UART_FCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR));
pr_debug("UART_LCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR));
pr_debug("UART_MCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR));
pr_debug("UART_LSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR));
pr_debug("UART_MSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));That is less readable and less supportable.
I prefer the fist case.
Actually I use a lot shorter macro:
#define traceh(h) printk("%s = 0x%lX\n", #h, (long int)h)
What is you opinion? Which method is better?
Thank you.
Quoted 26 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 80
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define pr_debug_hex (h) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = 0x%lX\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #h, (long int)h)This is not needed at all, just use the proper
printk()attribute.Macro above allows tidy tracing code:
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));Without that macro, code above should be rewritten with
pr_debug(or printk) as:pr_debug("UART_IER=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER)); pr_debug("UART_IIR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR)); pr_debug("UART_FCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR)); pr_debug("UART_LCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR)); pr_debug("UART_MCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR)); pr_debug("UART_LSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR)); pr_debug("UART_MSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));
Quoted 1 line
That is less readable and less supportable.
What better is to not do foolish stuff like this at all :)
If you need tracing, use the in-kernel tracing framework, don't roll your own.
Quoted 1 line
I prefer the fist case.
I prefer the flower case :)
Quoted 4 lines
Actually I use a lot shorter macro:
#define traceh(h)printk("%s = 0x%lX\n", #h, (long int)h)What is you opinion? Which method is better?
Again, neither, don't clutter your code up with unneeded things like this.
greg k-h
My apologies. As celinux-dev list administrator, I messed up my moderation and this response from Greg got discarded instead of sent to the list.
Here it is, sent by me on Greg's behalf...
-- Tim
Quoted 26 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 80
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+#define pr_debug_hex (h) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = 0x%lX\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #h, (long int)h)This is not needed at all, just use the proper
printk()attribute.Macro above allows tidy tracing code:
pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR)); pr_debug_hex(ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));Without that macro, code above should be rewritten with
pr_debug(or printk) as:pr_debug("UART_IER=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IER)); pr_debug("UART_IIR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_IIR)); pr_debug("UART_FCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_FCR)); pr_debug("UART_LCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LCR)); pr_debug("UART_MCR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MCR)); pr_debug("UART_LSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR)); pr_debug("UART_MSR=0x%02X\n", ioread8(port_ptr + UART_MSR));
Quoted 1 line
That is less readable and less supportable.
What better is to not do foolish stuff like this at all
If you need tracing, use the in-kernel tracing framework, don't roll your own.
Quoted 1 line
I prefer the fist case.
I prefer the flower case :)
Quoted 4 lines
Actually I use a lot shorter macro:
#define traceh(h)printk("%s = 0x%lX\n", #h, (long int)h)What is you opinion? Which method is better?
Again, neither, don't clutter your code up with unneeded things like this.
greg k-h
Quoted 11 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
From: Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>
LDT is useful for Linux driver development beginners,
hackers and as starting point for a new drivers.
The driver uses following Linux facilities: module, platform driver, file operations (read/write, mmap, ioctl, blocking and nonblocking mode, polling), kfifo, completion, interrupt, tasklet, work, kthread, timer, simple misc device, multiple char devices, Device Model, configfs, UART0x3f8,
HW loopback, SW loopback, ftracer.Signed-off-by Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>
In general, since this is intended to be example code for beginner developers, the code should have more comments explaining what each part does. It should also try as hard as possible to conform to kernel coding standards. I would suggest running it through checkpatch and sparse, since those tools are often recommended to (new) kernel developers.
Some more comments below.
~Ryan
Quoted 141 lines
--- samples/Kconfig | 14 + samples/Makefile | 5 +- samples/ltd/Makefile | 1 + samples/ltd/ldt.c | 764 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c | 68 ++++ tools/testing/ldt/Makefile | 6 + tools/testing/ldt/ctracer.h | 380 +++++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/ldt/dio.c | 362 ++++++++++++++++++++ tools/testing/ldt/ldt-test | 142 ++++++++ 9 files changed, 1740 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 samples/ltd/Makefile create mode 100644 samples/ltd/ldt.c create mode 100644 samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/Makefile create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/ctracer.h create mode 100644 tools/testing/ldt/dio.c create mode 100755 tools/testing/ldt/ldt-testsamples/Kconfig +14
-0@@ -69,4 +69,18 @@ config SAMPLE_RPMSG_CLIENT to communicate with an AMP-configured remote processor over the rpmsg bus. +config SAMPLE_DRIVER_TEMPLATE + tristate "LDT - Linux driver template" + help + Template of Linux device driver. Useful for Linux driver + development beginners, hackers and as starting point for a new drivers. + The driver uses following Linux facilities: module, platform driver, + file operations (read/write, mmap, ioctl, blocking and nonblocking mode, polling), + kfifo, completion, interrupt, tasklet, work, kthread, timer, simple misc device, + multiple char devices, Device Model, configfs, UART 0x3f8, HW loopback, + SW loopback, ftracer. + Usermode test script and utility are located in tools/testing/ldt/ + + List of more samples and skeletons can be found at http://elinux.org/Device_drivers + endif # SAMPLESsamples/Makefile +3
-2@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ # Makefile for Linux samples code -obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += kobject/ kprobes/ tracepoints/ trace_events/ \ - hw_breakpoint/ kfifo/ kdb/ hidraw/ rpmsg/ seccomp/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += kobject/ kprobes/ tracepoints/ trace_events/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += hw_breakpoint/ kfifo/ kdb/ hidraw/ rpmsg/ seccomp/ +obj-$(CONFIG_SAMPLES) += ldt/samples/ltd/Makefile new file +1
-0@@ -0,0 +1 @@ +obj-$(SAMPLE_DRIVER_TEMPLATE)+= ldt.o ldt_plat_dev.osamples/ltd/ldt.c new file +74
-0@@ -0,0 +1,764 @@ +/* +* LDT - Linux Driver Template +* +* Copyright (C) 2012 Constantine Shulyupin http://www.makelinux.net/ +* +* Dual BSD/GPL License +* +* +* The driver demonstrates usage of following Linux facilities: +* +* Linux kernel module +* file_operations +* read and write (UART) +* blocking read +* polling +* mmap +* ioctl +* kfifo +* completion +* interrupt +* tasklet +* timer +* work +* kthread +* simple single misc device file (miscdevice, misc_register) +* multiple char device files (alloc_chrdev_region) +* debugfs +* platform_driver and platform_device in another module +* simple UART driver on port 0x3f8 with IRQ 4 +* Device Model (class, device) +* Power Management (dev_pm_ops) +* Device Tree (of_device_id) +* +* TODO: +* linked list +* private instance state struct +* +*/ + +#include <linux/io.h> +#include <linux/mm.h> +#include <linux/interrupt.h> +#include <linux/sched.h> +#include <linux/delay.h> +#include <linux/kthread.h> +#include <linux/timer.h> +#include <linux/kfifo.h> +#include <linux/fs.h> +#include <linux/poll.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/miscdevice.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <linux/serial_reg.h> +#include <linux/debugfs.h> +#include <linux/cdev.h> +#include <linux/of.h> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> + +#define ctracer_cut_path (fn) (fn[0] != '/' ? fn : (strrchr(fn, '/') + 1)) +#define __file__ ctracer_cut_path(__FILE__) + +/* +* print_context prints execution context: +* hard interrupt, soft interrupt or scheduled task +*/ + +#define print_context () \ + pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s 0x%x\n", __file__, __LINE__, __func__, \ + (in_irq() ? "harirq" : current->comm), preempt_count()); + +#define once (exp) do { \ + static int _passed; if (!_passed) { exp; }; _passed = 1; } while (0) +
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 84
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+#define check (a) \ + (ret = a, ((ret < 0) ? pr_warning("%s:%i %s FAIL\n\t%i=%s\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, ret, #a) : 0), ret) + +#define pr_debug_hex (h) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = 0x%lX\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #h, (long int)h) +#define pr_debug_dec (d) pr_debug("%s:%d %s %s = %ld\n", \ + __file__, __LINE__, __func__, #d, (long int)d) + +#define pr_err_msg (m) pr_err("%s:%d %s %s\n", __file__, __LINE__, __func__, m)
This is all extensively ugly.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 92
Quoted 7 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +7
-0+ +static char ldt_name[] =KBUILD_MODNAME ; +static int bufsize =PFN_ALIGN (16 *1024 ); +static void *in_buf; +static void *out_buf; +static int uart_detected; +void *port_ptr;
Having globals like this means that only one instance of the device can be present, which is not true for many devices, and sets a bad example for copy-pasters, which this is aimed at. The typical way to do this is to have a struct:
struct ldt_info {
void *in_buf;
void *out_buf;
...
};And then allocate it in probe, and use dev_set_drvdata or similar to associate it with the device.
Quoted 20 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +20
-0+ +static int port; +module_param (port, int,0 ); +static int port_size; +module_param (port_size, int,0 ); + +static int irq; +module_param (irq, int,0 ); + +static int loopback; +module_param (loopback, int,0 ); + +static int isr_counter; +static int ldt_work_counter; + +#define FIFO_SIZE 128/* should be power of two */ +static DEFINE_KFIFO(in_fifo, char, FIFO_SIZE); +static DEFINE_KFIFO(out_fifo, char, FIFO_SIZE); + +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD (ldt_readable);
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 122
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+ +static spinlock_t fifo_lock; + + +/* +* ldt_received - called with data received from HW port +* Called from tasklet, which is fired from ISR or timer +*/ + +static void ldt_received (void *data,int size)
Why the indents on the comments? Also, remove the blank lines between the comments and the first line of the function.
Since this is example code, it should probably use proper kerneldoc formatted comments.
Quoted 8 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +8
-0+{ +kfifo_in_spinlocked (&in_fifo, data, size, &fifo_lock); +wake_up_interruptible (&ldt_readable); +} + +/* +* ldt_send - send data to HW port or emulated SW loopback +*/
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 140
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+ +static void ldt_send (void *data,int size) +{ +if (uart_detected) { +if (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_LSR ) &UART_LSR_THRE ) +iowrite8 (*(char *)data, port_ptr +UART_TX ); +else +pr_err_msg ("overflow" ); + }else +/* emulate loopback */
Braces should be used for single lines on the 'else' if the 'if' part also need braces. Note that comments are not statements, so the indentation here is misleading, it is actually interpreted as:
if (uart_detected) {
...
} else if (loopback) {
...
}Which may not be what you want (and certainly isn't what the code layout suggests).
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 147
Quoted 7 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +7
-0+if (loopback) +ldt_received (data, size); +} + +/* +* work +*/
Useless comment.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 155
Quoted 8 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +8
-0+ +static void ldt_work_func (struct work_struct *work) +{ +once (print_context ()); + ldt_work_counter++; +} + +DECLARE_WORK (ldt_work, ldt_work_func);
This should have static to stop it polluting the global namespace. Even better, it should be moved into a priv struct. Also, all global data should really be declared at the top of the file, unless there is a good reason not to do so.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 160
Quoted 5 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +5
-0+ +/* +* tasklet +*/ +
More useless comments.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 164
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+static DECLARE_COMPLETION (ldt_complete); + +#define tx_ready () (ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR) & UART_LSR_THRE) +#define rx_ready () (ioread8(port_ptr + UART_LSR) & UART_LSR_DR)
Stuff like this should be functions, not macros.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 168
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+ +static void ldt_tasklet_func (unsigned long d) +{ +char data_out, data_in;
Blank line between variable declarations and code.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 171
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+once (print_context ()); +if (uart_detected) { +while (tx_ready () &&kfifo_out_spinlocked (&out_fifo, &data_out,sizeof (data_out), &fifo_lock)) {
Lines should be split to fit inside 80 columns.
Quoted 86 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +86
-0+pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_LSR )); +pr_debug_dec (data_out); +if (data_out >=32 ) +pr_debug ("data_out = '%c' " , data_out); +ldt_send (&data_out,sizeof (data_out)); + } +while (rx_ready ()) { +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_LSR )); + data_in =ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_RX ); +pr_debug_dec (data_in); +if (data_in >=32 ) +pr_debug ("data_out = '%c' " , data_in); +ldt_received (&data_in,sizeof (data_in)); + } + }else { +while (kfifo_out_spinlocked (&out_fifo, &data_out,sizeof (data_out), &fifo_lock)) { +pr_debug_dec (data_out); +ldt_send (&data_out,sizeof (data_out)); + } + } +schedule_work (&ldt_work); +complete (&ldt_complete); +} + +static DECLARE_TASKLET(ldt_tasklet, ldt_tasklet_func, 0); + +/* +* interrupt +*/ + +static irqreturn_t ldt_isr (int irq,void *dev_id,struct pt_regs *regs) +{ +/* +* UART interrupt is not fired in loopback mode, +* therefore fire ldt_tasklet from timer too +*/ +once (print_context ()); + isr_counter++; +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_FCR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_IIR )); +tasklet_schedule (&ldt_tasklet); +return IRQ_HANDLED ;/* our IRQ */ +} + +/* +* timer +*/ + +static struct timer_list ldt_timer; +static void ldt_timer_func (unsigned long data) +{ +/* +* this timer is used just to fire ldt_tasklet, +* when there is no interrupt in loopback mode +*/ +if (loopback) +tasklet_schedule (&ldt_tasklet); +mod_timer (&ldt_timer, jiffies +HZ /100 ); +} + +static DEFINE_TIMER(ldt_timer, ldt_timer_func, 0, 0); + +/* +* file_operations +*/ + +static int ldt_open (struct inode *inode,struct file *file) +{ +print_context (); +pr_debug_dec (imajor (inode)); +pr_debug_dec (iminor (inode)); +pr_debug_hex (file->f_flags &O_NONBLOCK ); +return 0 ; +} + +static int ldt_release (struct inode *inode,struct file *file) +{ +print_context (); +pr_debug_dec (imajor (inode)); +pr_debug_dec (iminor (inode)); +pr_debug_dec (isr_counter); +pr_debug_dec (ldt_work_counter); +return 0 ; +} + +/*
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 267
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+* read +*/ + +static DEFINE_MUTEX (read_lock); + +static ssize_t ldt_read (struct file *file,char __user * buf,size_t count,loff_t * ppos) +{ +int ret; +unsigned int copied; +if (kfifo_is_empty (&in_fifo)) {
Doesn't this require locking against whatever is filling the fifo?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 270
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+if (file->f_flags &O_NONBLOCK ) { + ret = -EAGAIN ; + goto exit;
return -EAGAIN;
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 277
Quoted 7 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +7
-0+ }else { +pr_err_msg ("waiting" ); + ret =wait_event_interruptible (ldt_readable, !kfifo_is_empty (&in_fifo)); +if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS ) { +pr_err_msg ("interrupted" ); + ret = -EINTR ; + goto exit;
return -EINTR;
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 286
Quoted 9 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +9
-0+ } + } + } +if (mutex_lock_interruptible (&read_lock)) { +pr_err_msg ("interrupted" ); +return -EINTR ; + } + ret =kfifo_to_user (&in_fifo, buf, count, &copied); +mutex_unlock (&read_lock);
The read_lock is only used here, so would only protect against concurrent reads. Isn't the read for a device function already synchronised against itself by the caller?
Quoted 11 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +11
-0+exit: +return ret ? ret : copied; +} + +/* +* write +*/ + +static DEFINE_MUTEX (write_lock); + +static ssize_t ldt_write (struct file *file,const char __user * buf,size_t count,loff_t * ppos)
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 307
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+{ +int ret; +unsigned int copied; +/* TODO: wait_event_interruptible ... ldt_writeable */ +if (mutex_lock_interruptible (&write_lock)) +return -EINTR ; + ret =kfifo_from_user (&out_fifo, buf, count, &copied); +mutex_unlock (&write_lock); +tasklet_schedule (&ldt_tasklet); +return ret ? ret : copied;
Shouldn't this function be grabbing fifo_lock to prevent concurrent access to the fifo by the tasklet function? write_lock has the same issues described for read_lock above.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 320
Quoted 13 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +13
-0+} + +/* +* polling +*/ + +static unsigned int ldt_poll (struct file *file,poll_table * pt) +{ +unsigned int mask =0 ; +poll_wait (file, &ldt_readable, pt); +/*poll_wait(file, ldt_writeable, pt); TODO */ + +if (!kfifo_is_empty (&in_fifo))
Locking?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 326
Quoted 6 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +6
-0+ mask |=POLLIN |POLLRDNORM ; + mask |=POLLOUT |POLLWRNORM ; +#if 0 + mask |=POLLHUP ;/* on output eof */ + mask |=POLLERR ;/* on output error */ +#endif
TODO comments, and #if 0 blocks are extremly confusing in example code, especially when they lack any real explanation.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 337
Quoted 11 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +11
-0+pr_debug_hex (mask); +return mask; +} + +/* +* pages_flag - set or clear a flag for sequence of pages +* +* more generic solution instead SetPageReserved, ClearPageReserved etc +*/ + +void pages_flag (struct page *page,int pages,int mask,int value)
Should be static. I don't think this function should exists, especially not as example code.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 338
Quoted 2 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +2
-0+{ +for (; pages; pages--, page++)
page and pages is really confusing. Maybe page and num_pages would be better?
Quoted 39 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +39
-0+if (value) +__set_bit (mask, &page->flags); +else +__clear_bit (mask, &page->flags); +} + +/* +* mmap +*/ +static int ldt_mmap (struct file *filp,struct vm_area_struct *vma) +{ +void *buf =NULL ; +if (vma->vm_flags &VM_WRITE ) + buf = in_buf; +else if (vma->vm_flags &VM_READ ) + buf = out_buf; +if (!buf) +return -EINVAL ; +if (remap_pfn_range (vma, vma->vm_start,virt_to_phys (buf) >>PAGE_SHIFT , + vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start, vma->vm_page_prot)) { +pr_err_msg ("remap_pfn_range failed" ); +return -EAGAIN ; + } +return 0 ; +} + +/* +* ioctl +*/ + +#define trace_ioctl (nr) printk("ioctl=(%c%c %c #%i %i)\n", \ + (_IOC_READ & _IOC_DIR(nr)) ? 'r' : ' ', (_IOC_WRITE & _IOC_DIR(nr)) ? 'w' : ' ', \ + _IOC_TYPE(nr), _IOC_NR(nr), _IOC_SIZE(nr)) + +static long ldt_ioctl (struct file *f,unsigned int cmnd,unsigned long arg) +{ +void __user *user = (void *)arg; +pr_debug_hex (cmnd); +pr_debug_hex (arg);
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 388
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+trace_ioctl (cmnd); +if (_IOC_DIR (cmnd) == _IOC_WRITE) { +copy_from_user (in_buf, user,_IOC_SIZE (cmnd)); +memcpy (out_buf, in_buf, bufsize); +memset (in_buf,0 , bufsize); + } +if (_IOC_DIR (cmnd) == _IOC_READ) { +copy_to_user (user, out_buf,_IOC_SIZE (cmnd)); +memset (out_buf,0 , bufsize); + }
Locking for the kfifo accesses?
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+switch (_IOC_TYPE (cmnd)) { +case 'A' : +switch (_IOC_NR (cmnd)) { +case 0 : +break ; + } +break ; + } +return 0 ; +}
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 408
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+ +static const struct file_operations ldt_fops = { + .owner =THIS_MODULE , + .open = ldt_open, + .release = ldt_release, + .read = ldt_read, + .write = ldt_write, + .poll = ldt_poll, + .mmap = ldt_mmap, + .unlocked_ioctl = ldt_ioctl,
Tabify would be nice:
.owner = THIS_MODULE, .open = ldt_open, .release = ldt_release, ...
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 411
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+}; + +#ifdef USE_MISCDEV
Should be a Kconfig option?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 419
Quoted 8 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +8
-0+/* +* use miscdevice for single instance device +*/ +static struct miscdevice ldt_miscdev = { +MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR , + ldt_name, + &ldt_fops, +};
Use a C99 initialiser.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 426
Quoted 7 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +7
-0+#else +/* +* used cdev and device for multiple instances device +*/ + +static int devs =8 ; +module_param (devs, int,0 );
MODULE_PARM_DESC?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 439
Quoted 13 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +13
-0+ +static struct cdev ldt_cdev; +static struct class *ldt_class; +static struct device *ldt_dev; +#if 0 +static char *ldt_devnode (struct device *dev,umode_t * mode) +{ +if (mode) + *mode =S_IRUGO |S_IWUGO ; +/* *mode = 0666; */ +return NULL ; +} +#endif
Why is this commented out?
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+#endif + +/* +* kthread
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 453
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+*/ + +static int ldt_thread_sub (void *data) +{ +int ret =0 ; +/* +perform here a useful work in task context +*/ +return ret; +}
This seems fairly pointless. The ldt_thread function is the important bit. A simple thread might do all of its processing there. This implies that a sub-function is always required.
Quoted 19 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +19
-0+ +static int ldt_thread (void *data) +{ +int ret =0 ; +print_context (); +allow_signal (SIGINT ); +while (!kthread_should_stop ()) { + ret =wait_for_completion_interruptible (&ldt_complete); +if (ret == -ERESTARTSYS ) { +pr_err_msg ("interrupted" ); + ret = -EINTR ; +break ; + } + ret =ldt_thread_sub (data); + } +return ret; +} + +/*
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 482
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+* UART +*/ + +static struct resource *port_r; + +static int uart_probe (void ) +{ +int ret =0 ; +if (port) { + port_ptr =ioport_map (port, port_size);
Error checking?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 486
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+pr_debug_hex (port_ptr); + port_r =request_region (port, port_size, ldt_name); +pr_debug_hex (port_r); +/* ignore error */
Why ignore errors? This just encourages driver developers using this example to do the same.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 489
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+ } +if (irq) { + ret =check (request_irq (irq, (void *)ldt_isr,IRQF_SHARED , ldt_name,THIS_MODULE ));
Get rid of the check macro and do some proper error checking. Why is the second argument being cast as void *?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 501
Quoted 12 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +12
-0+iowrite8 (UART_MCR_RTS |UART_MCR_OUT2 |UART_MCR_LOOP , port_ptr +UART_MCR ); + uart_detected = (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_MSR ) &0xF0 ) == (UART_MSR_DCD |UART_MSR_CTS ); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_MSR )); + +if (uart_detected) { +/*iowrite8(UART_IER_MSI | UART_IER_THRI | UART_IER_RDI | UART_IER_RLSI, port_ptr + UART_IER); */ +iowrite8 (UART_IER_RDI |UART_IER_RLSI |UART_IER_THRI , port_ptr +UART_IER ); +iowrite8 (UART_MCR_DTR |UART_MCR_RTS |UART_MCR_OUT2 , port_ptr +UART_MCR ); +iowrite8 (UART_FCR_ENABLE_FIFO |UART_FCR_CLEAR_RCVR |UART_FCR_CLEAR_XMIT , port_ptr +UART_FCR ); +pr_debug_dec (loopback); +if (loopback) +iowrite8 (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_MCR ) |UART_MCR_LOOP , port_ptr +UART_MCR );
Break these lines up to get them under 80 columns.
Quoted 15 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +15
-0+ } +if (!uart_detected && loopback) { +pr_warn ("Emulating loopback in software\n" ); + ret = -ENODEV ; + } + } +pr_debug_hex (uart_detected); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_IER )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_IIR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_FCR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_LCR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_MCR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_LSR )); +pr_debug_hex (ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_MSR )); +return ret;
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 526
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+} + +static struct task_struct *thread; +static struct dentry *debugfs; +static int major; + +int chrdev_region_init (char *dev_name) +{ +int ret; +int d;
Same type variables can go on one line.
Quoted 19 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +19
-0+dev_t devid; + devid =MKDEV (major,0 ); + ret =check (alloc_chrdev_region (&devid,0 , devs, dev_name)); + major =MAJOR (devid); +pr_debug_dec (major); +cdev_init (&ldt_cdev, &ldt_fops); +check (cdev_add (&ldt_cdev,MKDEV (major,0 ), devs)); + ldt_class =class_create (THIS_MODULE , dev_name); +/* ldt_class->devnode = ldt_devnode; */ + ldt_dev =device_create (ldt_class,NULL , devid,NULL ,"%s" , dev_name); +for (d =1 ; d < devs; d++) +device_create (ldt_class,NULL ,MKDEV (major, d),NULL ,"%s%d" , dev_name, d); +pr_debug_dec (IS_ERR (ldt_dev)); +pr_debug_hex (ldt_dev); +return major; +} + +/* +* ldt_probe - main initialization function
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 555
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+*/ + +static __devinit int ldt_probe (struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +int ret; +char *data =NULL ; +struct resource *r; +print_context (); +printk (KERN_DEBUG "%s %s %s" , ldt_name, __DATE__, __TIME__); +printk (KERN_DEBUG "pdev = %p " , pdev);
Use pr_debug. Don't use __DATE__ and __TIME__, the person should know when they build their code.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 564
Quoted 9 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +9
-0+pr_debug_dec (irq); +pr_debug_dec (bufsize); + in_buf =alloc_pages_exact (bufsize,GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO); +if (!in_buf) { + ret = -ENOMEM ; + goto exit; + } +pages_flag (virt_to_page (in_buf),PFN_UP (bufsize), PG_reserved,1 ); + out_buf =alloc_pages_exact (bufsize,GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
alloc_pages_exact is not used by very many drivers, and none of the uses appear to be for kfifos. This sets a potentially bad example for driver writers. Any reason this can't be kzalloc?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 576
Quoted 12 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +12
-0+if (!out_buf) { + ret = -ENOMEM ; + goto exit; + } +pages_flag (virt_to_page (out_buf),PFN_UP (bufsize), PG_reserved,1 ); +if (pdev) { +dev_dbg (&pdev->dev,"%s:%d %s attaching driver\n" , __file__, __LINE__, __func__); +pr_debug_hex (pdev->dev.of_node); +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_DEVICE +check (of_platform_populate (pdev->dev.of_node,NULL ,NULL , &pdev->dev)); +#endif + data = pdev->dev.platform_data;
Use dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 580
Quoted 4 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +4
-0+printk ("%p %s\n" , data, data); +if (!irq) + irq =platform_get_irq (pdev,0 ); + r =platform_get_resource (pdev,IORESOURCE_IO ,0 );
If this fails, shouldn't the probe fail?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 588
Quoted 8 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +8
-0+if (r && !port) + port = r->start; + +if (r && !port_size) + port_size =resource_size (r); + } + isr_counter =0 ; +uart_probe ();
uart_probe returns a value, which is not checked here?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 594
Quoted 6 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +6
-0+/* proc_create(ldt_name, 0, NULL, &ldt_fops); depricated */ +mod_timer (&ldt_timer, jiffies +HZ /10 ); + thread =kthread_run (ldt_thread,NULL ,"%s" , ldt_name); +if (IS_ERR (thread)) { + ret =PTR_ERR (thread); +if (ret)
This if test will always be true.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 597
Quoted 3 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +3
-0+ goto exit; + } + debugfs =debugfs_create_file (ldt_name,S_IRUGO ,NULL ,NULL , &ldt_fops);
Error checking.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 606
Quoted 9 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +9
-0+#ifdef USE_MISCDEV + ret =check (misc_register (&ldt_miscdev)); +if (ret <0 ) + goto exit; +pr_debug_dec (ldt_miscdev.minor); +#else +chrdev_region_init (ldt_name); +#endif +exit:
This does no cleanup if the probe partially succeeded.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 618
Quoted 12 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +12
-0+pr_debug_dec (ret); +return ret; +} + +/* +* ldt_remove - main clean up function +*/ + +static int __devexit ldt_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ +int d; +if (pdev)
pdev should always be valid.
Quoted 79 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +79
-0+dev_dbg (&pdev->dev,"%s:%d %s detaching driver\n" , __file__, __LINE__, __func__); +/* remove_proc_entry(ldt_name, NULL); depricated */ +if (debugfs) +debugfs_remove (debugfs); +#ifdef USE_MISCDEV +misc_deregister (&ldt_miscdev); +#else +for (d =0 ; d < devs; d++) +device_destroy (ldt_class,MKDEV (major, d)); +class_destroy (ldt_class); +cdev_del (&ldt_cdev); +unregister_chrdev_region (MKDEV (major,0 ), devs); +#endif +if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL (thread)) { +send_sig (SIGINT , thread,1 ); +kthread_stop (thread); + } +del_timer (&ldt_timer); +if (port_r) +release_region (port, port_size); +if (irq) { +if (uart_detected) { +iowrite8 (0 , port_ptr +UART_IER ); +iowrite8 (0 , port_ptr +UART_FCR ); +iowrite8 (0 , port_ptr +UART_MCR ); +ioread8 (port_ptr +UART_RX ); + } +free_irq (irq,THIS_MODULE ); + } +tasklet_kill (&ldt_tasklet); +if (in_buf) { +pages_flag (virt_to_page (in_buf),PFN_UP (bufsize), PG_reserved,0 ); +free_pages_exact (in_buf, bufsize); + } +if (out_buf) { +pages_flag (virt_to_page (out_buf),PFN_UP (bufsize), PG_reserved,0 ); +free_pages_exact (out_buf, bufsize); + } +pr_debug_dec (isr_counter); +pr_debug_dec (ldt_work_counter); +if (port_ptr) +ioport_unmap (port_ptr); +return 0 ; +} + +#ifdef USE_PLATFORM_DEVICE + +/* +* Following code requires platform_device (ldt_plat_dev.*) to work +*/ + +#ifdef CONFIG_PM + +static int ldt_suspend (struct device *dev) +{ +return 0 ; +} + +static int ldt_resume (struct device *dev) +{ +return 0 ; +} + +static const struct dev_pm_ops ldt_pm = { + .suspend = ldt_suspend, + .resume = ldt_resume, +}; + +#define ldt_pm_ops (&ldt_pm) +#else +#define ldt_pm_ops NULL +#endif + +static const struct of_device_id ldt_of_match[] = { + {.compatible ="linux-driver-template" ,}, + {}, +}; + +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE (of, ldt_of_match);
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 707
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+ +static struct platform_driver ldt_driver = { + .driver = { + .name ="ldt_device_name" , + .owner =THIS_MODULE , + .pm = ldt_pm_ops, + .of_match_table =of_match_ptr (ldt_of_match), + }, + .probe = ldt_probe, + .remove =__devexit_p (ldt_remove),
Tabify.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 712
Quoted 5 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +5
-0+}; + +#ifdef module_platform_driver +module_platform_driver (ldt_driver); +#else
Why would this not be defined?
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 717
Quoted 5 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +5
-0+ +/* +* for Linux kernel releases before v3.1-12 +* without macro module_platform_driver +*/
If you are aiming for merging to mainline the kernel version stuff becomes irrelevant.
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 723
Quoted 6 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +6
-0+ +static int ldt_init (void ) +{ +int ret =0 ; + ret =platform_driver_register (&ldt_driver); +return ret;
return platform_driver_register(&ldt_driver);
Quoted 16 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +16
-0+} + +static void ldt_exit (void ) +{ +platform_driver_unregister (&ldt_driver); +} + +module_init (ldt_init); +module_exit (ldt_exit); +#endif /* module_platform_driver */ + +#else /* !USE_PLATFORM_DEVICE */ + +/* +* Standalone module initialization to run without platform_device +*/
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 749
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +10
-0+ +static int ldt_init (void ) +{ +int ret =0 ; +/* +* Call probe function directly, +* bypassing platform_device infrastructure +*/ + ret =ldt_probe (NULL ); +return ret;
return ldt_probe(NULL);
samples/ltd/ldt.c line 755
Quoted 6 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +6
-0+} + +static void ldt_exit (void ) +{ +int res; + res =ldt_remove (NULL );
What is the point of the res variable?
Quoted 41 lines
samples/ltd/ldt.c new file +9
-0+} + +module_init (ldt_init); +module_exit (ldt_exit); +#endif + +MODULE_DESCRIPTION ("LDT - Linux Driver Template" ); +MODULE_AUTHOR ("Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>" ); +MODULE_LICENSE ("Dual BSD/GPL" );samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +26
-0@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +/* +* LDT - Linux Driver Template +* +* Copyright (C) 2012 Constantine Shulyupin http://www.makelinux.net/ +* +* Dual BSD/GPL License +* +* platform_device template driver +* +* uses +* +* platform_data +* resources +* +*/ + +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include "tracing.h" + +static struct resource ldt_resource[] = { + { + .flags =IORESOURCE_IO , + .start =0x3f8 , + .end =0x3ff , + },
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c line 36
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +10
-0+ { + .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ, + .start = 4, + .end = 4, + }, + { + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM, + .start = 0, + .end = 0, + },
Identation is all messed here.
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c line 42
Quoted 6 lines
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +6
-0+}; + +void ldt_dev_release (struct device *dev) +{ +_entry:; +}
Just remove the body.
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c line 48
Quoted 5 lines
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +5
-0+static struct platform_device ldt_platform_device = { + .name ="ldt_device_name" , + .id =0 , + .num_resources =ARRAY_SIZE (ldt_resource), + .resource = ldt_resource,
Typically put resource first, then num_resources.
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +10
-0+ .dev.platform_data = "test data", + .dev.release = ldt_dev_release, +}; + +static int ldt_plat_dev_init (void ) +{ +return platform_device_register (&ldt_platform_device); +} + +static void ldt_plat_dev_exit (void )
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c line 68
Quoted 10 lines
samples/ltd/ldt_plat_dev.c new file +10
-0+{ +platform_device_unregister (&ldt_platform_device); +} + +module_init (ldt_plat_dev_init); +module_exit (ldt_plat_dev_exit); + +MODULE_DESCRIPTION ("LDT - Linux Driver Template: platform_device" ); +MODULE_AUTHOR ("Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>" ); +MODULE_LICENSE ("Dual BSD/GPL" );
~Ryan
Quoted 5 lines · Ryan Mallon
Quoted 2 lines · Constantine Shulyupin
From: Constantine Shulyupin <[email protected]>
+ if (kfifo_is_empty(&in_fifo)) {Doesn't this require locking against whatever is filling the fifo?
I seems doesn't.
Note from include/linux/kfifo.h
/*
* Note about locking : There is no locking required until only * one reader
* and one writer is using the fifo and no kfifo_reset() will be * called
* kfifo_reset_out() can be safely used, until it will be only called
* in the reader thread.
* For multiple writer and one reader there is only a need to lock the writer.
* And vice versa for only one writer and multiple reader there is only a need
* to lock the reader.
*/
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ if (
mutex_lock_interruptible(&read_lock)) {The
read_lockis only used here, so would only protect against concurrent reads. Isn't the read for a device function already synchronised against itself by the caller?
I can't find locking for read/write in sys_read, vfs_read I just found lock misc_mtx for misc_open, misc_register.
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
+ ret =
kfifo_from_user(&out_fifo, buf, count, &copied);Shouldn't this function be grabbing
fifo_lockto prevent concurrent access to the fifo by the tasklet function?write_lockhas the same issues described forread_lockabove.
Accordingly note about kfifo locking is shouldn't. kfifo supports asynchronous i/o.
Thank you.
Doing this is the past has always led to obsolete stale broken examples because they are not actively in use and maintained. Far better to work from actual live in use driver code.
Alan
Quoted 3 lines · Alan Cox
Doing this is the past has always led to obsolete stale broken examples because they are not actively in use and maintained. Far better to work from actual live in use driver code.
exactly what I tell him on ce-linux
Best Regards,
J.