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, 12 Jan 2016 17:25:56 +0800 From: Rongrong Zou <zourongrong@...wei.com> To: <liviu.dudau@....com>, Rongrong Zou <zourongrong@...il.com> CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] ARM64 LPC: update binding doc 在 2016/1/12 17:07, liviu.dudau@....com 写道: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:39:36AM +0800, Rongrong Zou wrote: >> On 2016/1/12 0:14, liviu.dudau@....com wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:13:05PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> On Sunday 03 January 2016 20:24:14 Rongrong Zou wrote: >>>>> 在 2015/12/31 23:00, Rongrong Zou 写道: >>>>>> 2015-12-31 22:40 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de <mailto:arnd@...db.de>>: >>>>>> > On Thursday 31 December 2015 22:12:19 Rongrong Zou wrote: >>>>>> > > 在 2015/12/30 17:06, Arnd Bergmann 写道: >>>>>> > > > On Tuesday 29 December 2015 21:33:52 Rongrong Zou wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The DT sample above looks good in principle. I believe what you are missing >>>>>> > here is code in your driver to scan the child nodes to create the platform >>>>>> > devices. of_bus_isa_translate() should work with your definition here >>>>>> > and create the correct IORESOURCE_IO resources. You don't have any MMIO >>>>>> > resources, so the absence of a ranges property is ok. Maybe all you >>>>>> > are missing is a call to of_platform_populate() or of_platform_bus_probe()? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> You are right. thanks, i'll try on test board . if i get the correct result , the new patch >>>>>> will be sent later. By the way, it's my another email account use when i at home. >>>>> >>>>> I tried, and there need some additional changes. >>>>> >>>>> isa@...b0000 { >>>>> >>>>> /*the node name should start with "isa", because of below definition >>>>> * static int of_bus_isa_match(struct device_node *np) >>>>> * { >>>>> * return !strcmp(np->name, "isa"); >>>>> * } >>>> >>>> Looks good. It would be nicer to match on device_type than on name, >>>> but this is ancient code and it's probably best not to touch it >>>> so we don't accidentally break some old SPARC or PPC system. >>>> >>>>> */ >>>>> compatible = "low-pin-count"; >>>>> device_type = "isa"; >>>>> #address-cells = <2>; >>>>> #size-cells = <1>; >>>>> reg = <0x0 0xa01b0000 0x0 0x10000>; >>>>> ranges = <0x1 0x0 0x0 0x0 0x1000>; >>>>> /* >>>>> * ranges is required, then i can get the IORESOURCE_IO <0xe4,4> from "reg = <0x1, 0x000000e4, 4>". >>>>> * >>>>> */ >>>>> ipmi_0:ipmi@...000e4{ >>>>> device_type = "ipmi"; >>>>> compatible = "ipmi-bt"; >>>>> reg = <0x1 0x000000e4 0x4>; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>> >>>> This looks wrong: the property above says that the I/O port range is >>>> translated to MMIO address 0x00000000 to 0x00010000, which is not >>>> true on your hardware. I think this needs to be changed in the code >>>> so the ranges property is not required for I/O ports. >>>> >>>>> drivers\of\address.c >>>>> static int __of_address_to_resource(struct device_node *dev, >>>>> const __be32 *addrp, u64 size, unsigned int flags, >>>>> const char *name, struct resource *r) >>>>> { >>>>> u64 taddr; >>>>> >>>>> if ((flags & (IORESOURCE_IO | IORESOURCE_MEM)) == 0) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>> taddr = of_translate_address(dev, addrp); >>>>> if (taddr == OF_BAD_ADDR) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>> memset(r, 0, sizeof(struct resource)); >>>>> if (flags & IORESOURCE_IO) { >>>>> unsigned long port; >>>>> >>>>> /*****************************************************************/ >>>>> /*legacy port(< 0x1000) is reserved, and need no translation here*/ >>>>> /*****************************************************************/ >>>>> if(taddr + size < PCIBIOS_MIN_IO){ >>>>> r->start = taddr; >>>>> r->end = taddr + size - 1; >>>>> } >>>> >>>> I don't like having a special case based on the address here, >>>> the same kind of hack might be needed for PCI I/O spaces in >>>> hardware that uses an indirect method like your LPC bus >>>> does, and the code above will not work on any LPC implementation >>>> that correctly multiplexes its I/O ports with the first PCI domain. >>>> >>>> I think it would be better to avoid translating the port into >>>> a physical address to start with just to translate it back into >>>> a port number, what we need instead is the offset between the >>>> bus specific port number and the linux port number. I've added >>>> Liviu to Cc, he wrote this code originally and may have some idea >>>> of how we could do that. >>> >>> Hi, >> >> Hi Liviu, >> >> Thanks for reviewing this. >> >>> >>> Getting back to work after a longer holiday, my brain might not be running >>> at full speed here, so I'm trying to clarify things a bit here. >>> >>> It looks to me like Rongrong is trying to trap the inb()/outb() calls that he >>> added to arm64 by patch 1/3 and redirect those operations to the memory >>> mapped LPC driver. I think the whole redirection and registration of inb/outb >>> ops can be made cleaner, so that the general concept resembles the DMA ops >>> registration? (I have this mental picture that what Rongrong is trying to do >>> is similar to what a DMA engine does, except this is slowing down things to >>> byte level). If that is done properly in the parent node, then we should not >>> care what the PCIBIOS_MIN_IO value is as the inb()/outb() calls will always >>> go through the redirection for the children. >>> >>> As for the ranges property: does he wants the ipmi-bt driver to see in the >>> reg property the legacy ISA I/O ports values or the CPU addresses? If the former, >>> then I agree that the range property should not be required, but also the >>> reg values need to be changed (drop the top bit). If the later, then the >>> ranges property is required to do the proper translation. >> >> The former, thanks. >> >>> >>> Rongrong, removing the ranges property and with a reg = <0xe4 0x4> property >>> in the ipmi-bt node, what IO_RESOURCE type resources do you get back from >>> the of_address_to_resource() translation? >> >> I want to get IORESOURCE_IO type resource, but if the parent node drop the >> "rangs" property, the of_address_to_resource() translation will return with -EINVAL. > > Have you tracked what part of the code is sensitive to the presence of "ranges" > property? Does of_get_address() call returns the IO_RESOURCE flag set without "ranges"? > Yes, IO_RESOURCE flag can be get without "ranges". I tracked the code, it is at of_translate_one(), Below is the calling infomation. of_address_to_resource-> __of_address_to_resource ->of_translate_address-> __of_translate_address(dev, in_addr, "ranges")->of_translate_one() static int of_translate_one(struct device_node *parent, struct of_bus *bus, struct of_bus *pbus, __be32 *addr, int na, int ns, int pna, const char *rprop) { const __be32 *ranges; unsigned int rlen; int rone; u64 offset = OF_BAD_ADDR; ranges = of_get_property(parent, rprop, &rlen); if (ranges == NULL && !of_empty_ranges_quirk(parent)) { pr_debug("OF: no ranges; cannot translate\n"); return 1; } ... } > Best regards, > Liviu > >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Liviu >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Arnd >>>> >>> >> Regards, >> Rongrong >> > -- Regards, Rongrong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists