linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 0/8] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI core

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:	Thu, 04 Jun 2015 14:41:47 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
CC:	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	"lenb @ kernel . org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, "x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 0/8] Consolidate ACPI PCI root common code into ACPI
 core

On 2015/6/4 14:31, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Jiang,
> 
> On 2015年06月04日 09:54, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> On 2015/6/4 4:27, Al Stone wrote:
>>> On 06/02/2015 12:12 AM, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>> This patch set consolidates common code to support ACPI PCI root on x86
>>>> and IA64 platforms into ACPI core, to reproduce duplicated code and
>>>> simplify maintenance. And a patch set based on this to support ACPI
>>>> based
>>>> PCIe host bridge on ARM64 has been posted at:
>>>
>>> Link is missing (or it's a typo of some flavor).
>> HI Al,
>>     Sorry, I missed the link. It has been posted at:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/26/207
> 
> I failed to get io resources for PCI hostbridge  when I was testing PCI
> on ARM64 QEMU, I debugged this for quite a while, and finally found out
> that ACPI resource parsing for IO is not suitable for ARM64, because io
> space for x86 is 64K, but 16M for ARM64.
> 
> This issue is only found when the firmware representing the io resource
> using the type ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_ADDRESS32, so the io address will
> greater than 64k.
> 
> In drivers/acpi/resource.c:
> 
> static void acpi_dev_ioresource_flags(struct resource *res, u64 len,
>                                       u8 io_decode, u8 translation_type)
> {
>         res->flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
> 
> [...]
> 
>         if (res->end >= 0x10003)
>                 res->flags |= IORESOURCE_DISABLED | IORESOURCE_UNSET;
> 
> [...]
> }
> 
> so the code will filter out res->end >= 0x10003, and in my case, it will
> more than 64K, so we can't get the IO resources.
> 
> I got a question, why we use if (res->end >= 0x10003) here?
> I mean 64k will be 0x10000, and in that case, we should use
> if (res->end >= 0x10000) here, not 0x10003, any history behind that?

Hi Hanjun,
This is a special tricky for x86. You may read a dword(four bytes) from
IO port 0xffff, so the effective io port space is 0x10003 bytes.

> 
> This is not the problem of this patch set, but need updating
> the core ACPI resource parsing code, I'm working on that. I'm
> just wondering there is no special IO space on IA64, how this works
> on IA64?
There is special handling for IO port on IA64. IA64 io ports are
actually memory-mapped, and there may be multiple 64K IO port spaces.
For example, each PCI domain may have its own 64k memory-mapped
IO space.
Thanks!
Gerry
> 
> Thanks
> Hanjun
--
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/