| 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: <5664A040.6080500@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 15:53:20 -0500
From: majun <majun258@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <Will.Deacon@....com>,
<mark.rutland@....com>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <lizefan@...wei.com>, <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
<dingtianhong@...wei.com>, <zhaojunhua@...ilicon.com>,
<liguozhu@...ilicon.com>, <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
<wei.chenwei@...ilicon.com>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
<wuyun.wu@...wei.com>, <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
<haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>, <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
<usman.ahmad@...aro.org>, <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
<gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] irqchip:create irq domain for each mbigen device
Hi Marc:
On 2015/12/3 11:25, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 23/11/15 03:15, MaJun wrote:
>> From: Ma Jun <majun258@...wei.com>
>>
>> For peripheral devices which connect to mbigen,mbigen is a interrupt
>> controller. So, we create irq domain for each mbigen device and add
>> mbigen irq domain into irq hierarchy structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <majun258@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> index 9f036c2..81ae61f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mbigen.c
>> @@ -16,13 +16,36 @@
>> * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> */
>>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/msi.h>
>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>
>> +/* Interrupt numbers per mbigen node supported */
>> +#define IRQS_PER_MBIGEN_NODE 128
>> +
>> +/* 64 irqs (Pin0-pin63) are reserved for each mbigen chip */
>> +#define RESERVED_IRQ_PER_MBIGEN_CHIP 64
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * In mbigen vector register
>> + * bit[21:12]: event id value
>> + * bit[11:0]: device id
>> + */
>> +#define IRQ_EVENT_ID_SHIFT 12
>> +#define IRQ_EVENT_ID_MASK 0x3ff
>> +
>> +/* register range of each mbigen node */
>> +#define MBIGEN_NODE_OFFSET 0x1000
>> +
>> +/* offset of vector register in mbigen node */
>> +#define REG_MBIGEN_VEC_OFFSET 0x200
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct mbigen_device - holds the information of mbigen device.
>> *
>> @@ -34,10 +57,94 @@ struct mbigen_device {
>> void __iomem *base;
>> };
>>
>> +static inline unsigned int get_mbigen_vec_reg(irq_hw_number_t hwirq)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int nid, pin;
>> +
>> + hwirq -= RESERVED_IRQ_PER_MBIGEN_CHIP;
>> + nid = hwirq / IRQS_PER_MBIGEN_NODE + 1;
>> + pin = hwirq % IRQS_PER_MBIGEN_NODE;
>> +
>> + return pin * 4 + nid * MBIGEN_NODE_OFFSET
>> + + REG_MBIGEN_VEC_OFFSET;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct irq_chip mbigen_irq_chip = {
>> + .name = "mbigen-v2",
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void mbigen_write_msg(struct msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_data *d = irq_get_irq_data(desc->irq);
>> + void __iomem *base = d->chip_data;
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + base += get_mbigen_vec_reg(d->hwirq);
>> + val = readl_relaxed(base);
>> +
>> + val &= ~(IRQ_EVENT_ID_MASK << IRQ_EVENT_ID_SHIFT);
>> + val |= (msg->data << IRQ_EVENT_ID_SHIFT);
>> +
>> + writel_relaxed(val, base);
>
> nit: It would be good to have a comment explaining why you do not need
> to program the address of the doorbell...
The address of doorbell is encoded in mbigen register by default,
So, we don't need to program the doorbell address in mbigen driver.
I'll add this comment in next version.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mbigen_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *d,
>> + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
>> + unsigned long *hwirq,
>> + unsigned int *type)
>> +{
>> + if (is_of_node(fwspec->fwnode)) {
>> + if (fwspec->param_count != 2)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + *hwirq = fwspec->param[0];
>> + *type = fwspec->param[1] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int mbigen_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
>> + unsigned int virq,
>> + unsigned int nr_irqs,
>> + void *args)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec = args;
>> + irq_hw_number_t hwirq;
>> + unsigned int type;
>> + struct mbigen_device *mgn_chip;
>> + int i, err;
>> +
>> + err = mbigen_domain_translate(domain, fwspec, &hwirq, &type);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> + err = platform_msi_domain_alloc(domain, virq, nr_irqs);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> +
>> + mgn_chip = platform_msi_get_host_data(domain);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++)
>> + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i, hwirq + i,
>> + &mbigen_irq_chip, mgn_chip->base);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct irq_domain_ops mbigen_domain_ops = {
>> + .translate = mbigen_domain_translate,
>> + .alloc = mbigen_irq_domain_alloc,
>> + .free = irq_domain_free_irqs_common,
>> +};
>> +
>> static int mbigen_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct mbigen_device *mgn_chip;
>> struct resource *res;
>> + struct irq_domain *domain;
>> + u32 num_msis;
>>
>> mgn_chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mgn_chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!mgn_chip)
>> @@ -50,6 +157,18 @@ static int mbigen_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (IS_ERR(mgn_chip->base))
>> return PTR_ERR(mgn_chip->base);
>>
>> + /* If there is no "num-msis" property, assume 64... */
>> + if (of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "num-msis", &num_msis) < 0)
>> + num_msis = 64;
>
> nit: Is that always true? This has been lifted from my dummy example,
do you mean patch v2? I just checked your patch, this part still exits.
so
> I wonder if that's what you actually want to do.
I think the default num_msis value should be maximum msis(256) the current
msi core supported.
How about your opinion, or I need to remove this part ?
Thanks!
Ma Jun
>
>> +
>> + domain = platform_msi_create_device_domain(&pdev->dev, num_msis,
>> + mbigen_write_msg,
>> + &mbigen_domain_ops,
>> + mgn_chip);
>> +
>> + if (!domain)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mgn_chip);
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>
> Apart for the two above point,
>
> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>
> M.
>
--
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