Re: [PATCH v6,4/4] drivers: misc: new driver sram_uapi for user level SRAM access

[王文虎]

>> A generic User-Kernel interface that allows a misc device created
>> by it to support file-operations of ioctl and mmap to access SRAM
>> memory from user level. Different kinds of SRAM alloction and free
>> APIs could be added to the available array and could be configured
>> from user level.
>
>Having a generic user level interface seem reasonable, but it would
>be helpful to list one or more particular use cases.

OK, I will use the FSL_85XX_SRAM as a case to describe it.

>
>> +if SRAM_UAPI
>> +
>> +config FSL_85XX_SRAM_UAPI
>> +       bool "Freescale MPC85xx Cache-SRAM UAPI support"
>> +       depends on FSL_SOC_BOOKE && PPC32
>> +       select FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM
>> +       help
>> +         This adds the Freescale MPC85xx Cache-SRAM memory allocation and
>> +         free interfaces to the available SRAM API array, which finally could
>> +         be used from user level to access the Freescale MPC85xx Cache-SRAM
>> +         memory.
>
>Why do you need  a hardware specific Kconfig option here, shouldn't
>this just use the generic kernel abstraction for the sram?
>
Yes, I will add a interface for any hardware drivers to register there specific apis
instead of the definition here.

>> +struct sram_api {
>> +       u32 type;
>> +       long (*sram_alloc)(u32 size, phys_addr_t *phys, u32 align);
>> +       void (*sram_free)(void *ptr);
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct sram_uapi {
>> +       struct list_head        res_list;
>> +       struct sram_api         *sa;
>> +};
>> +
>> +enum SRAM_TYPE {
>> +#ifdef FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM
>> +       SRAM_TYPE_FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM,
>> +#endif
>> +       SRAM_TYPE_MAX,
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* keep the SRAM_TYPE value the same with array index */
>> +static struct sram_api srams[] = {
>> +#ifdef FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM
>> +       {
>> +               .type           = SRAM_TYPE_FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM,
>> +               .sram_alloc     = mpc85xx_cache_sram_alloc,
>> +               .sram_free      = mpc85xx_cache_sram_free,
>> +       },
>> +#endif
>> +};
>
>If there is a indeed a requirement for hardware specific functions,
>I'd say these should be registered from the hardware specific driver
>rather than the generic driver having to know about every single
>instance.

Yes, as you mentioned upper, and the interfaces should be registered
by hardware drivers. and I'd use a set of generic abstractions of the definitions.

>> +static long sram_uapi_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
>> +                           unsigned long arg)
>> +{
>> +       struct sram_uapi *uapi = filp->private_data;
>> +       struct sram_resource *res;
>> +       struct res_info info;
>> +       long ret = -EINVAL;
>> +       int size;
>> +       u32 type;
>> +
>> +       if (!uapi)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       switch (cmd) {
>> +       case SRAM_UAPI_IOCTL_SET_SRAM_TYPE:
>> +               size = copy_from_user((void *)&type, (const void __user *)arg,
>> +                                     sizeof(type));
>
>This could be a simpler get_user().

Addressed.

>
>> +static const struct file_operations sram_uapi_ops = {
>> +       .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>> +       .open = sram_uapi_open,
>> +       .unlocked_ioctl = sram_uapi_ioctl,
>> +       .mmap = sram_uapi_mmap,
>> +       .release = sram_uapi_release,
>> +};
>
>If you have a .unlocked_ioctl callback, there should also be a
>.compat_ioctl one. This can normally point to compat_ptr_ioctl().

Addressed

>> +
>> +static struct miscdevice sram_uapi_miscdev = {
>> +       MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
>> +       "sram-uapi",
>> +       &sram_uapi_ops,
>> +};
>
>The name of the character device should not contain "uapi", that
>is kind of implied here.

Addressed

>> +
>> +#define SRAM_UAPI_IOCTL_SET_SRAM_TYPE  0
>> +#define SRAM_UAPI_IOCTL_ALLOC          1
>> +#define SRAM_UAPI_IOCTL_FREE           2
>> +
>> +struct res_info {
>> +       u32 offset;
>> +       u32 size;
>> +};
>
>This is of course not a proper ioctl interface at all, please see
>Documentation/driver-api/ioctl.rst for how to define the numbers
>in a uapi header file.
>
>The offset/size arguments should probably be 64 bit wide.

OK, I will reference the ioctl.rst and make a improvement and I think
phys_addr_t would be a better choice.

Thanks,
Wenhu