| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4CF5DD63.40803@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:30:11 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: char: hvc: add arm JTAG DCC console support
On 11/30/2010 11:25 AM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> @@ -682,6 +682,15 @@ config HVC_UDBG
> select HVC_DRIVER
> default n
>
> +config HVC_DCC
> + bool "ARM JTAG DCC console"
> + depends on ARM
> + select HVC_DRIVER
> + help
> + This console uses the JTAG DCC on ARM to create a console under the HVC
Looks like you added one too many spaces for indent here.
> diff --git a/drivers/char/hvc_dcc.c b/drivers/char/hvc_dcc.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..6470f63
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/char/hvc_dcc.c
> +static inline u32 __dcc_getstatus(void)
> +{
> + u32 __ret;
> +
> + asm("mrc p14, 0, %0, c0, c1, 0 @ read comms ctrl reg"
> + : "=r" (__ret) : : "cc");
> +
> + return __ret;
> +}
Without marking this asm volatile my compiler decides it can cache the
value of __ret in a register and then check the value of it continually
in hvc_dcc_put_chars() (I had to replace get_wait/put_wait with 1 and
fixup the branch otherwise my disassembler barfed on __dcc_(get|put)char).
00000000 <hvc_dcc_put_chars>:
0: ee103e11 mrc 14, 0, r3, cr0, cr1, {0}
4: e3a0c000 mov ip, #0 ; 0x0
8: e2033202 and r3, r3, #536870912 ; 0x20000000
c: ea000006 b 2c <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x2c>
10: e3530000 cmp r3, #0 ; 0x0
14: 1afffffd bne 10 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x10>
18: e7d1000c ldrb r0, [r1, ip]
1c: ee10fe11 mrc 14, 0, pc, cr0, cr1, {0}
20: 2afffffd bcs 1c <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x1c>
24: ee000e15 mcr 14, 0, r0, cr0, cr5, {0}
28: e28cc001 add ip, ip, #1 ; 0x1
2c: e15c0002 cmp ip, r2
30: bafffff6 blt 10 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x10>
34: e1a00002 mov r0, r2
38: e12fff1e bx lr
As you can see, the value of the mrc is checked against DCC_STATUS_TX
(bit 29) and then stored in r3 for later use. Marking this volatile
produces the following:
00000000 <hvc_dcc_put_chars>:
0: e3a03000 mov r3, #0 ; 0x0
4: ea000007 b 28 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x28>
8: ee100e11 mrc 14, 0, r0, cr0, cr1, {0}
c: e3100202 tst r0, #536870912 ; 0x20000000
10: 1afffffc bne 8 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x8>
14: e7d10003 ldrb r0, [r1, r3]
18: ee10fe11 mrc 14, 0, pc, cr0, cr1, {0}
1c: 2afffffd bcs 18 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x18>
20: ee000e15 mcr 14, 0, r0, cr0, cr5, {0}
24: e2833001 add r3, r3, #1 ; 0x1
28: e1530002 cmp r3, r2
2c: bafffff5 blt 8 <hvc_dcc_put_chars+0x8>
30: e1a00002 mov r0, r2
34: e12fff1e bx lr
which looks better.
I marked all the asm in this driver as volatile. Is that correct?
> +#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7)
> +static inline char __dcc_getchar(void)
> +{
> + char __c;
> +
> + asm("get_wait: mrc p14, 0, pc, c0, c1, 0 \n\
> + bne get_wait \n\
> + mrc p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0 @ read comms data reg"
> + : "=r" (__c) : : "cc");
> +
> + return __c;
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline char __dcc_getchar(void)
> +{
> + char __c;
> +
> + asm("mrc p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0 @ read comms data reg"
> + : "=r" (__c));
> +
> + return __c;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7)
> +static inline void __dcc_putchar(char c)
> +{
> + asm("put_wait: mrc p14, 0, pc, c0, c1, 0 \n\
> + bcs put_wait \n\
> + mcr p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0 "
> + : : "r" (c) : "cc");
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void __dcc_putchar(char c)
> +{
> + asm("mcr p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0 @ write a char"
> + : /* no output register */
> + : "r" (c));
> +}
> +#endif
> +
I don't think both the v7 and v6 functions are necessary. It seems I can
get away with just the second version of __dcc_(get|put)char() on a v7.
The mrc p14, 0, pc, c0, c1, 0 will assign the top 4 bits (31-28) to the
condition codes NZCV on v7. It also looks like on an ARM11 (a v6) will
also do the same thing if I read the manuals right. The test in the
inline assembly is saying, wait for a character to be ready or wait for
a character to be read then actually write a character or read one. The
code in hvc_dcc_put_chars() is already doing the same thing, albeit in a
slightly different form. Instead of getting the status bits put into the
condition codes and looping with bne or bcs it will read the register,
and it with bit 29 or bit 28 to see if it should wait and then continue
with the writing/reading. I think you can just drop the looping for the
v7 version of the functions and have this driver work on v6 and v7.
Alternatively, you can make some function that says tx buffer is empty,
rx buffer is full or something but I don't see how saving a couple
instructions buys us much when we can have one driver for v6 and v7.
I see that Tony Lindgren modified the DCC macros for v7 in commit
200b7a8 (ARM: 5884/1: arm: Fix DCC console for v7, 2010-01-19). I'm not
sure why though, since it seems that a v6 and a v7 should really do the
same thing by waiting for the buffers to be ready before filling them or
reading them. Which probably means we can get low-level dcc debugging on
all targets if I'm not mistaken.
> +static int hvc_dcc_put_chars(uint32_t vt, const char *buf, int count)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + while (__dcc_getstatus() & DCC_STATUS_TX)
> + cpu_relax();
> +
> + __dcc_putchar((char)(buf[i] & 0xFF));
Is this & 0xFF and cast to char unnecessary? buf is a char array, and
chars are always 8 bits. Can't we just do __dcc_putchar(buf[i])?
> +static int hvc_dcc_get_chars(uint32_t vt, char *buf, int count)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
> + int c = -1;
> +
> + if (__dcc_getstatus() & DCC_STATUS_RX)
> + c = __dcc_getchar();
> + if (c < 0)
> + break;
> + buf[i] = c;
> + }
I think this for loop can be simplified. __dcc_getchar() returns a char.
It never returns -1, so the check for c < 0 can't be taken if
__dcc_getstatus() & DCC_STATUS_RX is true. The only case you break the
loop in then is if __dcc_getstatus() & DCC_STATUS_RX is false. So you
can have a simple if-else and assign buf[i] in the if branch and break
in the else branch.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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