Message-ID: <1440497710.10987.42.camel@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:15:10 +0800
From:	Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>
To:	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Cc:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
	Bintian Wang <bintian.wang@...wei.com>,
	Yiping Xu <xuyiping@...ilicon.com>,
	Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"guodong.xu@...aro.org" <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
	Jian Zhang <zhangjian001@...ilicon.com>,
	Zhenwei Wang <Zhenwei.wang@...ilicon.com>,
	Haoju Mo <mohaoju@...ilicon.com>,
	Dan Zhao <dan.zhao@...ilicon.com>,
	"kongfei@...ilicon.com" <kongfei@...ilicon.com>,
	Guangyue Zeng <zengguangyue@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] arm64: dts: add Hi6220 mailbox node

On Tue, 2015-08-25 at 10:46 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:13:47PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 12:49 +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:19:56PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> > > > > If your EFI memory map describes the memory as mappable, it is wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > When kernel is working, kernel will create its own page table based on
> > > > UEFI memory map. Since it's reserved in DTS file as Leo's patch, it'll
> > > > be moved to reserved memblock. Why is it wrong?
> > > > 
> > > > In the second, UEFI is firmware. When it's stable, nobody should change
> > > > it without any reason.
> > > 
> > > Much like the memory map.
> > > 
> > > > These reserved memory are used in mailbox driver.
> > > > Look. It's driver, so it could be changed at any time.
> > > 
> > > No, it is a set of regions of memory set aside for use by a different
> > > master in the system as well as communications with that master.
> > > 
> > > The fact that there is a driver somewhere that is aware of this is
> > > entirely beside the point. All agents in the system must adher to this
> > > protocol.
> > > 
> > > > Why do you want
> > > > to UEFI knowing this memory range? Do you hope UEFI to change when
> > > > mailbox driver is changed?
> > > 
> > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > UEFI is a runtime environment. Having random magic areas not to be
> > > touched will cause random pieces of software running under it to break
> > > horribly or break other things horribly.
> > > Unless you mark them as reserved in the UEFI memory map.
> > > At which point the Linux kernel will automatically ignore them, and
> > > the proposed patch is redundant.
> > > 
> > > So, yes, if you want a system that can boot reliably, run testsuites
> > > (like SCT or FWTS), run applications (like fastboot ... or the EFI
> > > stub kernel itself), then any memory regions that is reserved for
> > > mailbox communication (or other masters in the system) _must_ be
> > > marked in the EFI memory map.
> > 
> > 1. We need support both UEFI and uboot. So the reserved buffer have to
> > be declared in DTB since they are used by kernel driver, not UEFI.
> 
> The buffer may need to be declared in DTB also, but it most certanily
> needs to be declared in UEFI.
> 
> And for the U-Boot case, since it is not memory available to Linux, it
> should not be declared as "memory".

Something are messed at here. We have these buffer are used in mailbox.
They should be allocated as non-cacheable.

If these buffers are contained in memory memblock in kernel, it means
that they exist in kernel page table with cachable property. When it's
used in mailbox driver with non-cachable property, it'll only cause
cache maintenance issue. So Leo declared these buffers as reserved
in DT with "no-map" property. It's the key. It could avoid the cache
maintenance issue.

> 
> > 2. UEFI just loads grub. It's no time to run any other custom EFI
> > application.
> 
> Apart from being completely irrelevant, how are you intending to
> validate that GRUB never touches these memory regions?
> 

GRUB is just a part of bootloader. When linux kernel is running,
who cares GRUB? GRUB's lifetime is already finished.

By the way, UEFI code region is at [0x3Dxx_xxxx, 0x3DFF_FFFF]. Those
mailbox buffer is in [0x05e0_xxxx, 0x06f0_xxxx]. Then I can make sure
UEFI won't touch the reserved buffer. Even if UEFI touched the reserved
buffer, is it an issue? Definitely it's not. UEFI's lifetime is end
when linux kernel is running at hikey. Even if UEFI runtime service
is enabled, the runtime data area is at [0x38xx_xxxx, 0x38xx_xxxx].

> Build a version once, test it, and hope the results remain valid
> forever? And then when you move the regions and the previously working
> GRUB now tramples all over them? Or when something changes in upstream
> GRUB and its memory allocations drifts into the secretly untouchable
> regions?

As I said above, UEFI won't touch it. And even UEFI touch it, kernel
doesn't care since UEFI's lifetime is end.

> 
> Are you then going to hack GRUB, release a special HiKey version of
> GRUB, not support any other versions, and still can your firmware
> UEFI?

I don't need to hack GRUB at all.

--
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