| 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: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 05:16:35 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] memory: tegra: Squash tegra20-mc into common
tegra-mc driver
On 19.02.2018 05:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 13.02.2018 13:30, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:06:30PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Tegra30+ has some minor differences in registers / bits layout compared
>>> to Tegra20. Let's squash Tegra20 driver into the common tegra-mc driver
>>> to reduce code a tad, this also will be useful for the upcoming Tegra's MC
>>> reset API.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/memory/Kconfig | 10 --
>>> drivers/memory/Makefile | 1 -
>>> drivers/memory/tegra/Makefile | 1 +
>>> drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c | 184 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>>> drivers/memory/tegra/mc.h | 10 ++
>>> drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20.c | 72 ++++++++++++
>>> drivers/memory/tegra20-mc.c | 254 -----------------------------------------
>>> include/soc/tegra/mc.h | 4 +-
>>> 8 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 325 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/memory/tegra/tegra20.c
>>> delete mode 100644 drivers/memory/tegra20-mc.c
>>
>> I generally like the idea of unifying the drivers, but I think this case
>> is somewhat borderline because the changes don't come naturally. That is
>> the parameterizations here seem overly heavy with a lot of special cases
>> for Tegra20. To me that indicates that Tegra20 is conceptually too much
>> apart from Tegra30 and later to make unification reasonable.
>>
>> However, I'd still very much like to see them unified, so let's go
>> through the remainder in more detail.
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/Kconfig b/drivers/memory/Kconfig
>>> index 19a0e83f260d..8d731d6c3e54 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/Kconfig
>>> @@ -104,16 +104,6 @@ config MVEBU_DEVBUS
>>> Armada 370 and Armada XP. This controller allows to handle flash
>>> devices such as NOR, NAND, SRAM, and FPGA.
>>>
>>> -config TEGRA20_MC
>>> - bool "Tegra20 Memory Controller(MC) driver"
>>> - default y
>>> - depends on ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC
>>> - help
>>> - This driver is for the Memory Controller(MC) module available
>>> - in Tegra20 SoCs, mainly for a address translation fault
>>> - analysis, especially for IOMMU/GART(Graphics Address
>>> - Relocation Table) module.
>>> -
>>> config FSL_CORENET_CF
>>> tristate "Freescale CoreNet Error Reporting"
>>> depends on FSL_SOC_BOOKE
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/Makefile b/drivers/memory/Makefile
>>> index 66f55240830e..a01ab3e22f94 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/Makefile
>>> @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OMAP_GPMC) += omap-gpmc.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_CORENET_CF) += fsl-corenet-cf.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IFC) += fsl_ifc.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MVEBU_DEVBUS) += mvebu-devbus.o
>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_TEGRA20_MC) += tegra20-mc.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_JZ4780_NEMC) += jz4780-nemc.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_SMI) += mtk-smi.o
>>> obj-$(CONFIG_DA8XX_DDRCTL) += da8xx-ddrctl.o
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/Makefile b/drivers/memory/tegra/Makefile
>>> index ce87a9470034..94ab16ba075b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/Makefile
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/Makefile
>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> tegra-mc-y := mc.o
>>>
>>> +tegra-mc-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC) += tegra20.o
>>> tegra-mc-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC) += tegra30.o
>>> tegra-mc-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC) += tegra114.o
>>> tegra-mc-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_124_SOC) += tegra124.o
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>>> index a4803ac192bb..187a9005351b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/mc.c
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>> #define MC_INT_INVALID_SMMU_PAGE (1 << 10)
>>> #define MC_INT_ARBITRATION_EMEM (1 << 9)
>>> #define MC_INT_SECURITY_VIOLATION (1 << 8)
>>> +#define MC_INT_INVALID_GART_PAGE (1 << 7)
>>> #define MC_INT_DECERR_EMEM (1 << 6)
>>>
>>> #define MC_INTMASK 0x004
>>> @@ -53,7 +54,14 @@
>>> #define MC_EMEM_ADR_CFG 0x54
>>> #define MC_EMEM_ADR_CFG_EMEM_NUMDEV BIT(0)
>>>
>>> +#define MC_GART_ERROR_REQ 0x30
>>> +#define MC_DECERR_EMEM_OTHERS_STATUS 0x58
>>> +#define MC_SECURITY_VIOLATION_STATUS 0x74
>>> +
>>> static const struct of_device_id tegra_mc_of_match[] = {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC
>>> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra20-mc", .data = &tegra20_mc_soc },
>>> +#endif
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC
>>> { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-mc", .data = &tegra30_mc_soc },
>>> #endif
>>> @@ -79,6 +87,9 @@ static int tegra_mc_setup_latency_allowance(struct tegra_mc *mc)
>>> unsigned int i;
>>> u32 value;
>>>
>>> + if (mc->soc->tegra20)
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Test for feature flags rather than chip generation. This could be
>> swapped for:
>>
>> if (mc->soc->supports_latency_allowance)
>> return 0;
>
> I'll try to do it other way in V2, without introducing any new flag at all.
>
>>> +
>>> /* compute the number of MC clock cycles per tick */
>>> tick = mc->tick * clk_get_rate(mc->clk);
>>> do_div(tick, NSEC_PER_SEC);
>>> @@ -229,6 +240,7 @@ static int tegra_mc_setup_timings(struct tegra_mc *mc)
>>> static const char *const status_names[32] = {
>>> [ 1] = "External interrupt",
>>> [ 6] = "EMEM address decode error",
>>> + [ 7] = "GART page fault",
>>> [ 8] = "Security violation",
>>> [ 9] = "EMEM arbitration error",
>>> [10] = "Page fault",
>>> @@ -257,78 +269,124 @@ static irqreturn_t tegra_mc_irq(int irq, void *data)
>>>
>>> for_each_set_bit(bit, &status, 32) {
>>> const char *error = status_names[bit] ?: "unknown";
>>> - const char *client = "unknown", *desc;
>>> - const char *direction, *secure;
>>> + const char *client = "unknown", *desc = "";
>>> + const char *direction = "read", *secure = "";
>>> phys_addr_t addr = 0;
>>> unsigned int i;
>>> - char perm[7];
>>> + char perm[7] = { 0 };
>>> u8 id, type;
>>> - u32 value;
>>> + u32 value, reg;
>>>
>>> - value = mc_readl(mc, MC_ERR_STATUS);
>>> + if (mc->soc->tegra20) {
>>> + switch (bit) {
>>> + case 6:
>>
>> Can we have symbolic names for this (and other bits)?
>
> Sure.
>
>>> + reg = MC_DECERR_EMEM_OTHERS_STATUS;
>>> + value = mc_readl(mc, reg);
>>>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
>>> - if (mc->soc->num_address_bits > 32) {
>>> - addr = ((value >> MC_ERR_STATUS_ADR_HI_SHIFT) &
>>> - MC_ERR_STATUS_ADR_HI_MASK);
>>> - addr <<= 32;
>>> - }
>>> -#endif
>>> + id = value & mc->soc->client_id_mask;
>>> + desc = error_names[2];
>>>
>>> - if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_RW)
>>> - direction = "write";
>>> - else
>>> - direction = "read";
>>> + if (value & BIT(31))
>>> + direction = "write";
>>> + break;
>>>
>>> - if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_SECURITY)
>>> - secure = "secure ";
>>> - else
>>> - secure = "";
>>> + case 7:
>>> + reg = MC_GART_ERROR_REQ;
>>> + value = mc_readl(mc, reg);
>>>
>>> - id = value & mc->soc->client_id_mask;
>>> + id = (value >> 1) & mc->soc->client_id_mask;
>>> + desc = error_names[2];
>>>
>>> - for (i = 0; i < mc->soc->num_clients; i++) {
>>> - if (mc->soc->clients[i].id == id) {
>>> - client = mc->soc->clients[i].name;
>>> + if (value & BIT(0))
>>> + direction = "write";
>>> + break;
>>> +
>>> + case 8:
>>> + reg = MC_SECURITY_VIOLATION_STATUS;
>>> + value = mc_readl(mc, reg);
>>> +
>>> + id = value & mc->soc->client_id_mask;
>>> + type = (value & BIT(30)) ? 4 : 3;
>>> + desc = error_names[type];
>>> + secure = "secure ";
>>> +
>>> + if (value & BIT(31))
>>> + direction = "write";
>>> + break;
>>> +
>>> + default:
>>> + reg = 0;
>>> + direction = "";
>>
>> This makes no sense to me. Why reset direction here if you already
>> explicitly set direction to "read". Why not just leave it unset until
>> you know exactly what it's going to be? Why do we even continue in a
>> case where we know nothing of the error status?
>
> I decided to re-do the "invalid" bits handling in other way and this "default"
> case will be thrown away.
>
> We continue because it's the point of handling _ALL_ bits here, including
> erroneous. I don't understand what's the question because you made code that
> way, I just added bits handling for T20.
>
>>> + id = mc->soc->num_clients;
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> - }
>>>
>>> - type = (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_MASK) >>
>>> - MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_SHIFT;
>>> - desc = error_names[type];
>>> + if (id < mc->soc->num_clients)
>>> + client = mc->soc->clients[id].name;
>>>
>>> - switch (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_MASK) {
>>> - case MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_INVALID_SMMU_PAGE:
>>> - perm[0] = ' ';
>>> - perm[1] = '[';
>>> + if (reg)
>>> + addr = mc_readl(mc, reg + sizeof(u32));
>>> + } else {
>>> + value = mc_readl(mc, MC_ERR_STATUS);
>>>
>>> - if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_READABLE)
>>> - perm[2] = 'R';
>>> - else
>>> - perm[2] = '-';
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
>>> + if (mc->soc->num_address_bits > 32) {
>>> + addr = ((value >> MC_ERR_STATUS_ADR_HI_SHIFT) &
>>> + MC_ERR_STATUS_ADR_HI_MASK);
>>> + addr <<= 32;
>>> + }
>>> +#endif
>>> + if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_RW)
>>> + direction = "write";
>>>
>>> - if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_WRITABLE)
>>> - perm[3] = 'W';
>>> - else
>>> - perm[3] = '-';
>>> + if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_SECURITY)
>>> + secure = "secure ";
>>>
>>> - if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_NONSECURE)
>>> - perm[4] = '-';
>>> - else
>>> - perm[4] = 'S';
>>> + id = value & mc->soc->client_id_mask;
>>>
>>> - perm[5] = ']';
>>> - perm[6] = '\0';
>>> - break;
>>> + for (i = 0; i < mc->soc->num_clients; i++) {
>>> + if (mc->soc->clients[i].id == id) {
>>> + client = mc->soc->clients[i].name;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>>
>>> - default:
>>> - perm[0] = '\0';
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> + type = (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_MASK) >>
>>> + MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_SHIFT;
>>> + desc = error_names[type];
>>> +
>>> + switch (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_MASK) {
>>> + case MC_ERR_STATUS_TYPE_INVALID_SMMU_PAGE:
>>> + perm[0] = ' ';
>>> + perm[1] = '[';
>>> +
>>> + if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_READABLE)
>>> + perm[2] = 'R';
>>> + else
>>> + perm[2] = '-';
>>> +
>>> + if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_WRITABLE)
>>> + perm[3] = 'W';
>>> + else
>>> + perm[3] = '-';
>>>
>>> - value = mc_readl(mc, MC_ERR_ADR);
>>> - addr |= value;
>>> + if (value & MC_ERR_STATUS_NONSECURE)
>>> + perm[4] = '-';
>>> + else
>>> + perm[4] = 'S';
>>> +
>>> + perm[5] = ']';
>>> + perm[6] = '\0';
>>> + break;
>>> +
>>> + default:
>>> + perm[0] = '\0';
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + value = mc_readl(mc, MC_ERR_ADR);
>>> + addr |= value;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> dev_err_ratelimited(mc->dev, "%s: %s%s @%pa: %s (%s%s)\n",
>>> client, secure, direction, &addr, error,
>>
>> I'd prefer if we completely separated the Tegra20 implementation of this
>> handler from the Tegra30+ implementation. Both don't end up sharing very
>> much in the end but this variant is very difficult to read, in my
>> opinion.
>
> I don't mind, although it is difficult to read because patch diff is formed that
> way, maybe format-patch options could be tweaked to make it readable. The actual
> code is "if (mc->soc->tegra20) {...} else {original code}".
>
> Actually it is good that you asked to do it, because I've spotted couple issues
> in this (and relative) code.
>
>>> @@ -369,11 +427,18 @@ static int tegra_mc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (IS_ERR(mc->regs))
>>> return PTR_ERR(mc->regs);
>>>
>>> - mc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "mc");
>>> - if (IS_ERR(mc->clk)) {
>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get MC clock: %ld\n",
>>> - PTR_ERR(mc->clk));
>>> - return PTR_ERR(mc->clk);
>>> + if (mc->soc->tegra20) {
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
>>> + mc->regs2 = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(mc->regs2))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(mc->regs2);
>>
>> Ugh... this is really ugly. In retrospect we really should've left the
>> memory-controller and iommu in the same device tree node. There's really
>> no reason for them to be separate, other than perhaps the Linux driver
>> model, which we could easily workaround by just instancing the IOMMU
>> device from the memory controller driver. That way we could simply share
>> the I/O mapping between both and avoid these games with two regions.
>
> Probably MC should have been an MFD and GART its sub-device from the start.
> Anyway I'll try to make this code a bit nicer.
>
>>> + } else {
>>> + mc->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "mc");
>>> + if (IS_ERR(mc->clk)) {
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get MC clock: %ld\n",
>>> + PTR_ERR(mc->clk));
>>> + return PTR_ERR(mc->clk);
>>> + }
>>> }
>>
>> It's odd that we don't have an MC clock on Tegra2. I wonder if perhaps
>> we just never implemented one, or it uses one which is always on by
>> default. Cc Peter to see if he knows.
>>
>>>
>>> err = tegra_mc_setup_latency_allowance(mc);
>>> @@ -416,7 +481,8 @@ static int tegra_mc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> value = MC_INT_DECERR_MTS | MC_INT_SECERR_SEC | MC_INT_DECERR_VPR |
>>> MC_INT_INVALID_APB_ASID_UPDATE | MC_INT_INVALID_SMMU_PAGE |
>>> - MC_INT_SECURITY_VIOLATION | MC_INT_DECERR_EMEM;
>>> + MC_INT_SECURITY_VIOLATION | MC_INT_DECERR_EMEM |
>>> + MC_INT_INVALID_GART_PAGE;
>>
>> This should be conditionalized on a feature flag such as "has_gart". For
>> most generations of Tegra this would probably work, but newer versions
>> have become quite picky about these kinds of things, so in some cases an
>> access to a reserved register or field can cause an exception.
>
> I noticed that some of these flags also don't apply to T30/T40, so for now I
> decided to add "intr_mask" per SoC instead of adding the "has_gart" flag.
s/these flags/interrupt status bits/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists