Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1459608 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe()

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe() Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-10 21:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe() Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-08-10 23:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe() Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-11 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe() Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> - 2016-08-11 18:00 +0200

#1459608 — [PATCH] eeprom: at24: check if the chip is functional in probe()

The at24 driver doesn't check if the chip is functional in its probe
function. This leads to instantiating devices that are not physically
present. For example the cape EEPROMs for BeagleBone Black are defined
in the device tree at four addresses on i2c2, but normally only one of
them is present.

If the userspace doesn't know the location in advance, it will need to
check if reading the nvmem attributes fails to determine which EEPROM
is actually there.

Try to read a single byte in probe() and bail-out with -ENODEV if the
read fails.

Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
index 3cdf8e1..ed1e4eb 100644
--- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
+++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
@@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 	struct at24_data *at24;
 	int err;
 	unsigned i, num_addresses;
+	char c;
 
 	if (client->dev.platform_data) {
 		chip = *(struct at24_platform_data *)client->dev.platform_data;
@@ -780,6 +781,15 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
 	if (chip.setup)
 		chip.setup(at24->nvmem, chip.context);
 
+	err = at24_read(at24, 0, &c, 1);
+	if (err) {
+		dev_err(&client->dev,
+			"error reading the test byte from EEPROM: %d\n", err);
+		nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
+		err = -ENODEV;
+		goto err_clients;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 
 err_clients:
-- 
2.7.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1459984

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:54:17PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> The at24 driver doesn't check if the chip is functional in its probe
> function. This leads to instantiating devices that are not physically
> present. For example the cape EEPROMs for BeagleBone Black are defined
> in the device tree at four addresses on i2c2, but normally only one of
> them is present.
> 
> If the userspace doesn't know the location in advance, it will need to
> check if reading the nvmem attributes fails to determine which EEPROM
> is actually there.
> 
> Try to read a single byte in probe() and bail-out with -ENODEV if the
> read fails.

That's basically OK...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
> ---
>  drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> index 3cdf8e1..ed1e4eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
> @@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  	struct at24_data *at24;
>  	int err;
>  	unsigned i, num_addresses;
> +	char c;

u8?

>  
>  	if (client->dev.platform_data) {
>  		chip = *(struct at24_platform_data *)client->dev.platform_data;
> @@ -780,6 +781,15 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>  	if (chip.setup)
>  		chip.setup(at24->nvmem, chip.context);
>  
> +	err = at24_read(at24, 0, &c, 1);

Can't we do this before registering dummy clients and nvmem registration?

> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(&client->dev,
> +			"error reading the test byte from EEPROM: %d\n", err);

I don't think we should print an error in case of ENODEV.

> +		nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
> +		err = -ENODEV;
> +		goto err_clients;
> +	}
> +
>  	return 0;
>  
>  err_clients:
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1460602

2016-08-10 16:07 GMT+02:00 Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:54:17PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> The at24 driver doesn't check if the chip is functional in its probe
>> function. This leads to instantiating devices that are not physically
>> present. For example the cape EEPROMs for BeagleBone Black are defined
>> in the device tree at four addresses on i2c2, but normally only one of
>> them is present.
>>
>> If the userspace doesn't know the location in advance, it will need to
>> check if reading the nvmem attributes fails to determine which EEPROM
>> is actually there.
>>
>> Try to read a single byte in probe() and bail-out with -ENODEV if the
>> read fails.
>
> That's basically OK...
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> index 3cdf8e1..ed1e4eb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> +++ b/drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>> @@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>       struct at24_data *at24;
>>       int err;
>>       unsigned i, num_addresses;
>> +     char c;
>
> u8?
>
>>
>>       if (client->dev.platform_data) {
>>               chip = *(struct at24_platform_data *)client->dev.platform_data;
>> @@ -780,6 +781,15 @@ static int at24_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
>>       if (chip.setup)
>>               chip.setup(at24->nvmem, chip.context);
>>
>> +     err = at24_read(at24, 0, &c, 1);
>
> Can't we do this before registering dummy clients and nvmem registration?
>

It should be ok for nvmem, but I'm not sure about the clients:
at24_translate_offset() will return one of the registered client
structures and though it should generally work for the first byte (it
would always be at24->client[0]), it won't be "rock solid" anymore.

Best regards,
Bartosz Golaszewski

>> +     if (err) {
>> +             dev_err(&client->dev,
>> +                     "error reading the test byte from EEPROM: %d\n", err);
>
> I don't think we should print an error in case of ENODEV.
>
>> +             nvmem_unregister(at24->nvmem);
>> +             err = -ENODEV;
>> +             goto err_clients;
>> +     }
>> +
>>       return 0;
>>
>>  err_clients:
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1460639

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> >> +     err = at24_read(at24, 0, &c, 1);
> >
> > Can't we do this before registering dummy clients and nvmem registration?
> >
> 
> It should be ok for nvmem, but I'm not sure about the clients:
> at24_translate_offset() will return one of the registered client
> structures and though it should generally work for the first byte (it
> would always be at24->client[0]), it won't be "rock solid" anymore.

Agreed.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web