Message-ID: <20150205125208.GE24474@xora-haswell.xora.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 5 Feb 2015 12:52:08 +0000
From:	Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"wangyijing@...wei.com" <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"msalter@...hat.com" <msalter@...hat.com>,
	"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
	"phoenix.liyi@...wei.com" <phoenix.liyi@...wei.com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinc@...eaurora.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 02/21] acpi: fix acpi_os_ioremap for arm64

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 12:07:20PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 11:14:43AM +0000, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:59:45AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:47:23AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On 5 February 2015 at 10:41, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:58:14PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > > >> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 17:57 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > >> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 04:08:27PM +0000, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > > >> > > acpi_os_remap() is used to map ACPI tables. These tables may be in ram
> > > > >> > > which are already included in the kernel's linear RAM mapping. So we
> > > > >> > > need ioremap_cache to avoid two mappings to the same physical page
> > > > >> > > having different caching attributes.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > What's the call path to acpi_os_ioremap() on such tables already in the
> > > > >> > linear mapping? I can see an acpi_map() function which already takes
> > > > >> > care of the RAM mapping case but there are other cases where
> > > > >> > acpi_os_ioremap() is called directly. For example,
> > > > >> > acpi_os_read_memory(), can it be called on both RAM and I/O?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> acpi_map() is the one I've seen.
> > > > >
> > > > > By default, if should_use_kmap() is not patched for arm64, it translates
> > > > > to page_is_ram(); acpi_map() would simply use a kmap() which returns the
> > > > > current kernel linear mapping on arm64.
> > > > >
> > > > >> I'm not sure about others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question for the ARM ACPI guys: what happens if you implement
> > > > > acpi_os_ioremap() on arm64 as just ioremap()? Do you get any WARN_ON()
> > > > > (__ioremap_caller() checks whether the memory is RAM)?
> > > > 
> > > > Regardless of whether you hit any WARN_ON()s now,
> > > 
> > > Actually following the WARN_ON(), ioremap() returns NULL, so it may not
> > > go entirely unnoticed.
> > > 
> > > > we still need to distinguish between MMIO ranges with device
> > > > semantics, and ACPI or other tables whose data may not be naturally
> > > > aligned all the time, and hence requiring memory semantics.
> > > > acpi_os_ioremap() may be used for both, afaik
> > > 
> > > Is acpi_os_ioremap() called directly (outside acpi_map()) to map RAM
> > > that already part of the kernel linear memory? If yes, then I agree that
> > > we need to do such check.
> > > 
> > > Another question, can we distinguish, in the ACPI core code, whether the
> > > mapping is for an ACPI table in RAM or some I/O space?
> > 
> > Yes I think we do,
> > 
> > acpi_os_map_memory() is called to map tables
> > 
> > acpi_os_map_iomem() is called to map device IO
> > 
> > currently both end up in acpi_map but I guess they do not have to or
> > we can add extra arguments as its an internal API.
> 
> Ending up in acpi_map() is ok as this function checks whether it should
> use kmap() or acpi_os_ioremap().
> 
> > But I have not checked that no user sneaks in direct calls.
> 
> Grep'ing for acpi_os_ioremap():
> 
> suspend_nvs_save() - we don't care about this yet for arm64 as the
> function is only compiled in if CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> 
> acpi_os_read_memory() and acpi_os_write_memory() - do you know what kind
> of memory are these used on?
> 

They are used when an operating region is set to SystemMemory type.

>From table 19-326

Region Type: SystemMemory
Permitted Access Type: ByteAcc, WordAcc, DWordAcc, QWordAcc, or AnyAcc
Description: All access allowed

Graeme

> couple of intel drm files that are not used on arm.
> 
> -- 
> Catalin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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