| 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: <EE11001F9E5DDD47B7634E2F8A612F2E1F8F5D75@lhreml507-mbx>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:36:49 +0000
From: Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: Yuanzhichang <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
"minyard@....org" <minyard@....org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
"will.deacon@....com" <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xuwei (O)" <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"zourongrong@...il.com" <zourongrong@...il.com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"kantyzc@....com" <kantyzc@....com>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
"liviu.dudau@....com" <liviu.dudau@....com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"zhichang.yuan02@...il.com" <zhichang.yuan02@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06
Hi Arnd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@...db.de]
> Sent: 10 November 2016 09:12
> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: Yuanzhichang; mark.rutland@....com; devicetree@...r.kernel.org;
> lorenzo.pieralisi@....com; Gabriele Paoloni; minyard@....org; linux-
> pci@...r.kernel.org; benh@...nel.crashing.org; John Garry;
> will.deacon@....com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; xuwei (O); Linuxarm;
> zourongrong@...il.com; robh+dt@...nel.org; kantyzc@....com; linux-
> serial@...r.kernel.org; catalin.marinas@....com; olof@...om.net;
> liviu.dudau@....com; bhelgaas@...gle.com; zhichang.yuan02@...il.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on
> Hip06
>
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 2:40:26 PM CET zhichang.yuan wrote:
> > On 2016/11/10 5:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 12:10:43 PM CET Gabriele Paoloni
> wrote:
> > >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:47:09 AM CET zhichang.yuan wrote:
> > >>>> + /*
> > >>>> + * The first PCIBIOS_MIN_IO is reserved specifically for
> > >>> indirectIO.
> > >>>> + * It will separate indirectIO range from pci host
> bridge to
> > >>>> + * avoid the possible PIO conflict.
> > >>>> + * Set the indirectIO range directly here.
> > >>>> + */
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.start = 0;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.end = PCIBIOS_MIN_IO - 1;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.devpara = lpcdev;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfin = hisilpc_comm_in;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfout = hisilpc_comm_out;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfins = hisilpc_comm_ins;
> > >>>> + lpcdev->io_ops.pfouts = hisilpc_comm_outs;
> > >>>
> > >>> I have to look at patch 2 in more detail again, after missing a
> few
> > >>> review
> > >>> rounds. I'm still a bit skeptical about hardcoding a logical I/O
> port
> > >>> range here, and would hope that we can just go through the same
> > >>> assignment of logical port ranges that we have for PCI buses,
> > >>> decoupling
> > >>> the bus addresses from the linux-internal ones.
> > >>
> > >> The point here is that we want to avoid any conflict/overlap
> between
> > >> the LPC I/O space and the PCI I/O space. With the assignment above
> > >> we make sure that LPC never interfere with PCI I/O space.
> > >
> > > But we already abstract the PCI I/O space using dynamic
> registration.
> > > There is no need to hardcode the logical address for ISA, though
> > > I think we can hardcode the bus address to start at zero here.
> >
> > Do you means that we can pick up the maximal I/O address from all
> children's
> > device resources??
>
> The driver should not look at the resources of its children, just
> register a range of addresses dynamically, as I suggested in an
> earlier review.
Where should we get the range from? For LPC we know that it is going
Work on anything that is not used by PCI I/O space, and this is
why we use [0, PCIBIOS_MIN_IO]
>
>
> Your current version has
>
> if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout) \
> arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
> addr, value, sizeof(type)); \
>
> Instead, just subtract the start of the range from the logical
> port number to transform it back into a bus-local port number:
These accessors do not operate on IO tokens:
If (arm64_extio_ops->start > addr || arm64_extio_ops->end < addr)
addr is not going to be an I/O token; in fact patch 2/3 imposes that
the I/O tokens will start at PCIBIOS_MIN_IO. So from 0 to PCIBIOS_MIN_IO
we have free physical addresses that the accessors can operate on.
Thanks
Gab
>
> if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout) \
> arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
> addr - arm64_extio_ops->start, value,
> sizeof(type)); \
>
> We know that the ISA/LPC bus can only have up to 65536 ports,
> so you can register all of those, or possibly limit it further to
> 1024 or 4096 ports, whichever matches the bus implementation.
>
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists