| 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: <55AEB094.1090601@broadcom.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:50:28 -0700
From: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] PCI: iproc: enable arm64 support for iProc PCIe
On 7/21/2015 1:30 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:39:20PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>> This patch enables arm64 support to the iProc PCIe driver
>
> This needs a little more explanation: ARM has a common struct pci_sys_data
> but ARM64 does not,
Correct, and according to Arnd, there's already work in process of
removing the need for pci_sys_data on arm32. Before that is done, we
need this in the driver for it to work on both arm32 and arm64.
and ARM needs pci_fixup_irqs() but ARM64 does not (why
> not?),
under arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c:
41 /*
42 * Try to assign the IRQ number from DT when adding a new device
43 */
44 int pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev)
45 {
46 dev->irq = of_irq_parse_and_map_pci(dev, 0, 0);
47
48 return 0;
49 }
interrupt is automatically parsed and mapped when adding a new device
for arm64.
ARM uses the common pci_sys_data for the PCI sysdata while ARM64
> uses a driver-specific sysdata, etc.
>
Correct. pci_sys_data for arm32 will eventually be removed, so all arm32
based PCie host should only need to carry driver specific sysdata.
>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c | 15 ++++-----------
>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h | 8 ++++++--
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>> index d77481e..8a556d5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.c
>> @@ -58,11 +58,6 @@
>> #define SYS_RC_INTX_EN 0x330
>> #define SYS_RC_INTX_MASK 0xf
>>
>> -static inline struct iproc_pcie *sys_to_pcie(struct pci_sys_data *sys)
>> -{
>> - return sys->private_data;
>> -}
>> -
>> /**
>> * Note access to the configuration registers are protected at the higher layer
>> * by 'pci_lock' in drivers/pci/access.c
>> @@ -71,8 +66,7 @@ static void __iomem *iproc_pcie_map_cfg_bus(struct pci_bus *bus,
>> unsigned int devfn,
>> int where)
>> {
>> - struct pci_sys_data *sys = bus->sysdata;
>> - struct iproc_pcie *pcie = sys_to_pcie(sys);
>> + struct iproc_pcie *pcie = bus->sysdata;
>> unsigned slot = PCI_SLOT(devfn);
>> unsigned fn = PCI_FUNC(devfn);
>> unsigned busno = bus->number;
>> @@ -208,10 +202,7 @@ int iproc_pcie_setup(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, struct list_head *res)
>>
>> iproc_pcie_reset(pcie);
>>
>> - pcie->sysdata.private_data = pcie;
>> -
>> - bus = pci_create_root_bus(pcie->dev, 0, &iproc_pcie_ops,
>> - &pcie->sysdata, res);
>> + bus = pci_create_root_bus(pcie->dev, 0, &iproc_pcie_ops, pcie, res);
>> if (!bus) {
>> dev_err(pcie->dev, "unable to create PCI root bus\n");
>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>> @@ -229,7 +220,9 @@ int iproc_pcie_setup(struct iproc_pcie *pcie, struct list_head *res)
>>
>> pci_scan_child_bus(bus);
>> pci_assign_unassigned_bus_resources(bus);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>> pci_fixup_irqs(pci_common_swizzle, pcie->map_irq);
>> +#endif
>> pci_bus_add_devices(bus);
>>
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h
>> index ba0a108..0ee9673 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-iproc.h
>> @@ -18,18 +18,22 @@
>>
>> /**
>> * iProc PCIe device
>> + * @sysdata: Per PCI controller data. This needs to be kept at the beginning of
>> + * struct iproc_pcie, to enable support of both ARM32 and ARM64 platforms with
>> + * minimal changes in the iProc PCIe core driver
>> * @dev: pointer to device data structure
>> * @base: PCIe host controller I/O register base
>> * @resources: linked list of all PCI resources
>> - * @sysdata: Per PCI controller data
>> * @root_bus: pointer to root bus
>> * @phy: optional PHY device that controls the Serdes
>> * @irqs: interrupt IDs
>> */
>> struct iproc_pcie {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM
>> + struct pci_sys_data sysdata;
>> +#endif
>
> I'm OK with adding #ifdefs to make this work on both ARM and ARM64. We can
> at least see the ifdefs and know what needs to be fixed. I'm a little more
> hesitant about adding code that depends on the position of sysdata within
> struct iproc_pcie. I'd rather have something ugly and robust that cries
> out for fixing than something minimal and fragile.
>
Yes that was my original code and that was a bit ugly. Arnd proposed
this and it does indeed make the look a lot cleaner. But yeah, it now
depends on the location of struct pci_sys_data in memory and I see your
concern. In fact, I asked exactly the same question to Arnd.
Are you okay with living with this for a little while until struct
pci_sys_data is eventually removed from arm32?
> I see that your v1 patch added #ifdef CONFIG_ARM around sysdata at its
> original location below, and you mentioned that you took Arnd's advice to
> move sysdata to the beginning of the structure, but I don't see Arnd's
> email on the list.
>
Sorry maybe you need to elaborate here. Am I supposed to add Arnd's name
in the commit message? Other than that, Arnd is on this email thread.
>> struct device *dev;
>> void __iomem *base;
>> - struct pci_sys_data sysdata;
>> struct pci_bus *root_bus;
>> struct phy *phy;
>> int irqs[IPROC_PCIE_MAX_NUM_IRQS];
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
--
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