| 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: <57DAAAAE.6010206@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:05:34 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, Ma Jun <majun258@...wei.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <charles.garcia-tobin@....com>,
linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/11] ACPI: platform: setup MSI domain for ACPI
based platform device
Hi Marc,
Thanks for your review, reply inline.
On 09/14/2016 11:45 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 14/09/16 15:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>>
>> With the platform msi domain created, we can set up the msi domain
>> for a platform device when it's probed.
>>
>> This patch introduces acpi_configure_msi_domain(), which retrieves
>> the domain from iort and set it to platform device.
>>
>> As some platform devices such as an irqchip needs the msi irqdomain
>> to be the interrupt parent domain, we need to get irqdomain before
>> platform device is probed.
>>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 5 ++++-
>> drivers/base/platform-msi.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/base/platform.c | 2 ++
>> include/linux/msi.h | 1 +
>> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
>> index 13a1905..bccd3cc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c
>> @@ -478,6 +478,7 @@ struct irq_domain *iort_get_device_domain(struct device *dev, u32 req_id)
>> {
>> struct fwnode_handle *handle;
>> int its_id;
>> + enum irq_domain_bus_token bus_token;
>>
>> if (iort_dev_find_its_id(dev, req_id, 0, &its_id))
>> return NULL;
>> @@ -486,7 +487,9 @@ struct irq_domain *iort_get_device_domain(struct device *dev, u32 req_id)
>> if (!handle)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> - return irq_find_matching_fwnode(handle, DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI);
>> + bus_token = dev_is_pci(dev) ?
>> + DOMAIN_BUS_PCI_MSI : DOMAIN_BUS_PLATFORM_MSI;
>> + return irq_find_matching_fwnode(handle, bus_token);
>> }
>>
>> static int __get_pci_rid(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 alias, void *data)
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform-msi.c b/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
>> index 279e539..f6eae18 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/platform-msi.c
>> @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@
>> * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> */
>>
>> +#include <linux/acpi_iort.h>
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>> -#include <linux/idr.h>
>> #include <linux/irq.h>
>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> #include <linux/msi.h>
>> @@ -416,3 +416,16 @@ int platform_msi_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq,
>>
>> return err;
>> }
>> +
>> +int acpi_configure_msi_domain(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_domain *d = NULL;
>> +
>> + d = iort_get_device_domain(dev, 0);
>
> This looks completely wrong. Why RID 0? As far as I can see, 0 is not a
> special value, and could be something else.
You are right. I tried to reuse the API of get irqdomain in IORT for
PCI devices, but for platform device, we don't have req id in named
component, so I just pass 0 here, I think I need to prepare another
API for platform devices.
>
>> + if (d) {
>> + dev_set_msi_domain(dev, d);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>
> I really hate this, as the platform MSI code is intentionally free of
> any firmware reference. This should live in the ACPI code.
Will do, I think locate it in iort.c is better.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/platform.c b/drivers/base/platform.c
>> index 6482d47..ea01a37 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/platform.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>> #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>> #include <linux/idr.h>
>> #include <linux/acpi.h>
>> +#include <linux/msi.h>
>> #include <linux/clk/clk-conf.h>
>> #include <linux/limits.h>
>> #include <linux/property.h>
>> @@ -500,6 +501,7 @@ struct platform_device *platform_device_register_full(
>> pdev->dev.parent = pdevinfo->parent;
>> pdev->dev.fwnode = pdevinfo->fwnode;
>>
>> + acpi_configure_msi_domain(&pdev->dev);
>
> It feels odd to put this in the generic code, while you could perfectly
> put the call into acpi_platform.c and keep the firmware stuff away from
> the generic code.
My feeling is the same, I'm still trying to find a new way to do it,
but I can't simply put that in acpi_platform.c, because
acpi_create_platform_device()
platform_device_register_full()
platform_device_alloc() --> dev is alloced
...
dev.fwnode is set
(I get the msi domain by the fwnode in acpi_configure_msi_domain)
...
platform_device_add() --> which the device is probed.
For devices like irqchip which needs the dev->msi_domain to be
set before it's really probed, because it needs the msi domain
to be the parent domain.
If I call the function in acpi_create_platform_device() before
platform_device_register_full(), we just can't set dev's msi
domain, but if call it after platform_device_register_full(),
the irqchip like mbigen will not get its parent domain...
DT is using another API for platform device probe, so has no
problems like I said above, any suggestions to do it right in
ACPI?
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists