linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:09:49 +0800
From:   "zhichang.yuan" <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
CC:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        "minyard@....org" <minyard@....org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "zourongrong@...il.com" <zourongrong@...il.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "kantyzc@....com" <kantyzc@....com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
        "liviu.dudau@....com" <liviu.dudau@....com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gl e.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "zhichang.yuan02@...il.com" <zhichang.yuan02@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

Hi, Arnd,

On 2016/11/11 0:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 3:36:49 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni wrote:
>>
>> Where should we get the range from? For LPC we know that it is going
>> Work on anything that is not used by PCI I/O space, and this is 
>> why we use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO]
> 
> It should be allocated the same way we allocate PCI config space
> segments. This is currently done with the io_range list in
> drivers/pci/pci.c, which isn't perfect but could be extended
> if necessary. Based on what others commented here, I'd rather
> make the differences between ISA/LPC and PCI I/O ranges smaller
> than larger.
> 
>>> Your current version has
>>>
>>>         if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout)                             \
>>>                 arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
>>>                        addr, value, sizeof(type));             \
>>>
>>> Instead, just subtract the start of the range from the logical
>>> port number to transform it back into a bus-local port number:
>>
>> These accessors do not operate on IO tokens:
>>
>> If (arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || arm64_extio_ops->end < addr)
>> addr is not going to be an I/O token; in fact patch 2/3 imposes that
>> the I/O tokens will start at PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. So from 0 to PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
>> we have free physical addresses that the accessors can operate on.
> 
> Ah, I missed that part. I'd rather not use PCIBIOS_MIN_IO to refer to
> the logical I/O tokens, the purpose of that macro is really meant
> for allocating PCI I/O port numbers within the address space of
> one bus.
> 
> Note that it's equally likely that whichever next platform needs
> non-mapped I/O access like this actually needs them for PCI I/O space,
> and that will use it on addresses registered to a PCI host bridge.
> 
> If we separate the two steps:
> 
> a) assign a range of logical I/O port numbers to a bus
> b) register a set of helpers for redirecting logical I/O
>    port to a helper function
>
It seems that we need to add a new bus and the corresponding resource management
which can also cover current PCI pio mapping, is it right?

Thanks,
Zhichang

> then I think the code will get cleaner and more flexible.
> It should actually then be able to replace the powerpc
> specific implementation.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 
> .
>