| 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: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:12:30 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86 @ kernel . org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 4/6] PCI/ACPI: Consolidate common PCI host bridge code
into ACPI core
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Jiang Liu wrote:
[...]
> +static int acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct list_head *list = &info->resources;
> + struct acpi_device *device = info->bridge;
> + struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + flags = IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT;
Is IORESOURCE_MEM_8AND16BIT required because of some pending patches
that will change ACPI resource filtering ? It does not seem to make
a difference in the mainline code, AFAICT.
> + ret = acpi_dev_get_resources(device, list,
> + acpi_dev_filter_resource_type_cb,
> + (void *)flags);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_warn(&device->dev,
> + "failed to parse _CRS method, error code %d\n", ret);
> + else if (ret == 0)
> + dev_dbg(&device->dev,
> + "no IO and memory resources present in _CRS\n");
> + else {
> + resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, list) {
> + if (entry->res->flags & IORESOURCE_DISABLED)
> + resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> + else
> + entry->res->name = info->name;
> + }
> + acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> + IORESOURCE_MEM);
> + acpi_pci_root_validate_resources(&device->dev, list,
> + IORESOURCE_IO);
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void pci_acpi_root_add_resources(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> + struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> + struct resource *res, *conflict, *root = NULL;
> +
> + resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> + res = entry->res;
> + if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_MEM)
> + root = &iomem_resource;
> + else if (res->flags & IORESOURCE_IO)
> + root = &ioport_resource;
> + else
> + continue;
> +
> + conflict = insert_resource_conflict(root, res);
> + if (conflict) {
> + dev_info(&info->bridge->dev,
> + "ignoring host bridge window %pR (conflicts with %s %pR)\n",
> + res, conflict->name, conflict);
> + resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void __acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info)
> +{
> + struct resource *res;
> + struct resource_entry *entry, *tmp;
> +
> + if (!info)
> + return;
> +
> + resource_list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &info->resources) {
> + res = entry->res;
> + if (res->parent &&
> + (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> + release_resource(res);
> + resource_list_destroy_entry(entry);
> + }
> +
> + info->ops->release_info(info);
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_pci_root_release_info(struct pci_host_bridge *bridge)
> +{
> + struct resource *res;
> + struct resource_entry *entry;
> +
> + resource_list_for_each_entry(entry, &bridge->windows) {
> + res = entry->res;
> + if (res->parent &&
> + (res->flags & (IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_IO)))
> + release_resource(res);
> + }
It is a question: is this loop necessary given that we are already
releasing resources in __acpi_pci_root_release_info() ?
> + __acpi_pci_root_release_info(bridge->release_data);
> +}
> +
> +struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> + struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> + struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> + void *sysdata, int segment, int node)
I do not think you need to pass segment and node, they clutter the
function signature when you can retrieve them from root, I would
make them local variables and use root->segment and acpi_get_node
in the function body to retrieve them.
> +{
> + int ret, busnum = root->secondary.start;
> + struct acpi_device *device = root->device;
> + struct pci_bus *bus;
> +
> + info->root = root;
> + info->bridge = device;
> + info->ops = ops;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->resources);
> + snprintf(info->name, sizeof(info->name), "PCI Bus %04x:%02x",
> + segment, busnum);
> +
> + if (ops->init_info && ops->init_info(info))
> + goto out_release_info;
> + ret = acpi_pci_probe_root_resources(info);
> + if (ops->prepare_resources)
> + ret = ops->prepare_resources(info, ret);
You go through this ret passing song and dance because we may want to
call prepare_resources even if acpi_pci_probe_root_resource failed (on
x86), correct ? I will have a further look at x86 and ia64 if we
can consolidate these ops function hooks even further.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out_release_info;
> + else if (ret > 0)
> + pci_acpi_root_add_resources(info);
> + pci_add_resource(&info->resources, &root->secondary);
> +
> + bus = pci_create_root_bus(NULL, busnum, ops->pci_ops,
> + sysdata, &info->resources);
> + if (bus) {
> + pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
> + pci_set_host_bridge_release(to_pci_host_bridge(bus->bridge),
> + acpi_pci_root_release_info, info);
> + if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &bus->dev, "on NUMA node %d\n",
> + node);
> + return bus;
> + }
> +
> +out_release_info:
> + __acpi_pci_root_release_info(info);
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> void __init acpi_pci_root_init(void)
> {
> acpi_hest_init();
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> index a965efa52152..a76cb6f24ca1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-acpi.h
> @@ -52,6 +52,29 @@ static inline acpi_handle acpi_pci_get_bridge_handle(struct pci_bus *pbus)
> return ACPI_HANDLE(dev);
> }
>
> +struct acpi_pci_root;
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops;
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_info {
> + struct acpi_pci_root *root;
> + struct acpi_device *bridge;
> + struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops;
> + struct list_head resources;
> + char name[16];
> +};
> +
> +struct acpi_pci_root_ops {
> + struct pci_ops *pci_ops;
> + int (*init_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> + void (*release_info)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info);
> + int (*prepare_resources)(struct acpi_pci_root_info *info, int status);
> +};
> +
> +extern struct pci_bus *acpi_pci_root_create(struct acpi_pci_root *root,
> + struct acpi_pci_root_ops *ops,
> + struct acpi_pci_root_info *info,
> + void *sd, int seg, int node);
> +
> void acpi_pci_add_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
> void acpi_pci_remove_bus(struct pci_bus *bus);
>
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
--
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