linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: provide mechanism for drivers to access L2 registers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160524112326.GC25374@leverpostej>
Date:	Tue, 24 May 2016 12:23:26 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Neil Leeder <nleeder@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
	Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, cov@...eaurora.org,
	ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: provide mechanism for drivers to access L2
 registers

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 02:22:59PM -0400, Neil Leeder wrote:
> 
> On 5/23/2016 01:25 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:13:07PM -0400, Neil Leeder wrote:
> >> L2 registers are accessed using a select register and data
> >> register pair. To prevent multiple concurrent writes to the
> >> select register by independent drivers, the write to the
> >> select register and the associated access of the data register
> >> are protected with a lock. All drivers accessing the L2
> >> registers use the set and get functions provided by
> >> l2-accessors to ensure correct reads and writes to L2 registers.
> > 
> > What will this be used for? (i.e. which drivers want to touch the L2
> > registers?).
> > 
> > Generally we expect FW to configure the caches and interconnect
> > appropriately.
> 
> The primary use is in the L2 PMU driver, which will be posted shortly.

Ok.

> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Leeder <nleeder@...eaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig              |  9 +++++
> >>  drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile             |  1 +
> >>  drivers/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.c       | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  include/linux/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.h | 27 ++++++++++++++
> >>  4 files changed, 103 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 drivers/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.c
> >>  create mode 100644 include/linux/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.h
> > 
> > These are awfully generic file names (and function names). Which SoCs
> > does this apply to?
> > 
> > It would be good to give these more specific names.
> 
> It's under soc/qcom, and dependent on ARCH_QCOM and (in v2) also on ARM64. It applies to all QCOM ARM64 SoCs.

Per Christopher's comment, it sounds like this applies to QDF24xx.

Given that the code uses IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED system registers, I
presume that this does not apply to MSM8916 which uses Cortex-A53, for
example (though perhaps it does, and I am mistaken).

> Given that it can only be used in a QCOM driver, and the include path has qcom in it, I'd
> prefer not to add redundancy by adding another qcom in there.

I'm not asking for another "qcom", but simply the SoC variant or family
(e.g. "qdf24xx" would be fine).

> >> diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.h b/include/linux/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..563c114
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/l2-accessors.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
> >> +/*
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2011-2016 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> >> + *
> >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
> >> + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> + *
> >> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> >> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> >> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> >> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> >> + */
> >> +
> > 
> >> +#ifndef __QCOM_L2_ACCESSORS_H
> >> +#define __QCOM_L2_ACCESSORS_H
> >> +
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_QCOM_L2_ACCESSORS
> >> +void set_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr, u64 val);
> >> +u64 get_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr);
> >> +#else
> >> +static inline void set_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr, u64 val) {}
> >> +static inline u64 get_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr)
> >> +{
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> > 
> > Surely it would be better to error out on any unintentional use of these
> > at build time?
> 
> This allows building code which is common to ARM SoCs and QCOM SoCs without having to ifdef out the
> QCOM-specific pieces.

These shouldn't appear in generic code.

Other than the L2 PMU driver (which presumably depends on or selects
CONFIG_QCOM_L2_ACCESSORS), what code would you have to ifdef?

I don't have a major concern on this, I just don't see where it should
matter.

Thanks,
Mark.