| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:52:54 +0900
From: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
To: 'Arnd Bergmann' <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: 'Thomas Petazzoni' <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
'Jason Gunthorpe' <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
'Siva Reddy Kallam' <siva.kallam@...sung.com>,
'Surendranath Gurivireddy Balla' <suren.reddy@...sung.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
'Thierry Reding' <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
'Grant Likely' <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
'Kukjin Kim' <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
'Thomas Abraham' <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
'Bjorn Helgaas' <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
'Andrew Murray' <andrew.murray@....com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] pci: Add PCIe driver for Samsung Exynos
On Monday, June 17, 2013 9:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 17 June 2013 18:45:52 Jingoo Han wrote:
> > On Friday, June 14, 2013 9:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > Please look up the documentation about inbound viewport and describe
> > > in a code comment what it does. I /assume/ that this is how DMA accesses
> > > from the bus get translated into AXI bus transactions. If so, you have
> > > to let the window translate addresses from RAM. If it's something else,
> > > then you should document what it is and how it needs to be set up.
> >
> > One of our hardware engineer confirmed it.
> > He said that these inbound functions are unnecessary.
> > Also, I checked that PCIe works properly without these functions.
> > So, I will remove these inbound functions.
>
> Ok, good. So DMA just gets translated 1:1 independent of the
> inbound viewport? Have you tested this with PCI device using
> DMA?
According to our hardware engineer,
He said that
"That's correct. We tested it by doing a memory write from the device.
A device DMA is a series of memory r/w so I expect it to work same way."
Also, he thought that I already tested too, since it works after removing
the functions.
>
> > static int exynos_pcie_setup(int nr, struct pci_sys_data *sys)
> > {
> > struct pcie_port *pp;
> >
> > pp = sys_to_pcie(sys);
> >
> > if (!pp)
> > return 0;
> >
> > if (global_io_offset < SZ_1M && pp->config.io_size > 0) {
> > sys->io_offset = global_io_offset - pp->config.io_bus_addr; /* normally 0 */
> > pci_ioremap_io(sys->io_offset, pp->io.start);
> > global_io_offset += SZ_64K;
> > }
> >
> > sys->mem_offset = pp->mem.start - pp->config.mem_bus_addr; /* normally 0 */
> >
> > pci_add_resource_offset(&sys->resources, &pp->io, sys->io_offset);
> > pci_add_resource_offset(&sys->resources, &pp->mem, sys->mem_offset);
> >
> > return 1;
> > }
>
> This is what I meant, yes.
>
> > In this case, boot message is as below:
> >
> > PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
> > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io 0x40001000-0x40010fff]
> > pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x40011000-0x5fffffff]
> > pci_bus 0000:00: No busn resource found for root bus, will use [bus 00-ff]
> > pci 0000:00:00.0: [144d:a549] type 01 class 0x060400
> > [.....]
> > PCI host bridge to bus 0001:00
> > pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [io 0x60001000-0x60010fff] (bus address [0x5fff1000-0x6000
> > 0fff])
> > pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [mem 0x60011000-0x7fffffff]
> > pci_bus 0001:00: No busn resource found for root bus, will use [bus 00-ff]
> > pci 0001:00:00.0: [144d:a549] type 01 class 0x060400
>
> The io resources here look wrong. I would have expected
>
> pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io 0x001000-0x00ffff]
> pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [io 0x010000-0x01ffff] (bus address [0x000000-0x00ffff])
>
> Please have a look at the pci-mvebu driver and how it calculates its
> 'realio' resource.
I looked at the pci-mvebu driver,
Then I fixed it as the pci-mvebu driver did.
Also, I added 'global_io_offset'.
@@ -909,6 +909,12 @@ static int __init exynos_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
if (restype == IORESOURCE_IO) {
of_pci_range_to_resource(&range, np, &pp->io);
pp->io.name = "I/O";
+ pp->io.start = max_t(resource_size_t,
+ PCIBIOS_MIN_IO,
+ range.pci_addr + global_io_offset);
+ pp->io.end = min_t(resource_size_t,
+ IO_SPACE_LIMIT,
+ range.pci_addr + range.size + global_io_offset);
pp->config.io_size = resource_size(&pp->io);
pp->config.io_bus_addr = range.pci_addr;
In this case, boot message is as below:
PCI host bridge to bus 0000:00
pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [io 0x1000-0x10000]
pci_bus 0000:00: root bus resource [mem 0x40011000-0x5fffffff]
[.....]
PCI host bridge to bus 0001:00
pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [io 0x10000-0x20000] (bus address [0x0000-0x10000])
pci_bus 0001:00: root bus resource [mem 0x60011000-0x7fffffff]
>
> > > > > > +static int __exit exynos_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct pcie_port *pp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + clk_disable_unprepare(pp->bus_clk);
> > > > > > + clk_disable_unprepare(pp->clk);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > You also don't remove the PCI devices here, as mentioned in an earlier
> > > > > review.
> > > >
> > > > I reviewed Marvell PCIe driver and Tegra PCIe driver; however,
> > > > I cannot know what you mean.
> > > >
> > > > Could let me know which additional functions are needed?
> > >
> > > The mvebu driver does not allow module unload. I haven't looked at the
> > > tegra driver. If you allow unloading the driver and provide a 'remove'
> > > callback, that callback needs to clean up the entire bus and remove
> > > all child devices that were added as well as undo everything the
> > > probe function did. I think it would be great if you can do that, although
> > > it might not be easy. The simplest solution would be to not support
> > > unloading though.
> >
> > As the mvebu driver uses platform_driver_probe(), the Exynos driver uses
> > platform_driver_probe(). Thus, I will not provide a 'remove' callback.
>
> Well, the important part is not to provide a module_exit() function, which
> will ensure the driver cannot be unloaded.
I will remove a 'remove' callback. Is it OK?
Or what should I do?
Thank you for your comment. :)
Best regards,
Jingoo Han
>
> Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists