linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 3/3] ARM64 LPC: LPC driver implementation on Hip06

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: <2565107.vdSUAxpRt4@wuerfel>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:46:21 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     "zhichang.yuan" <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lorenzo.pieralisi@....com" <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Gabriele Paoloni <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.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

[found this old mail in my drafts folder, might as well send it now]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 8:36:24 PM CET zhichang.yuan wrote:
> Sorry! I can't catch your idea yet:(
> 
> When to register the I/O range? Is it done just after the successfully
> of_translate_address() during the children scanning?

No, you do it when first finding the bus itself, just like we do for
PCI host bridges.

> If yes, when a child is scanning, there is no range data in arm64_extio_ops. The
> addr_is_indirect_io() calling in of_get_isa_indirect_io() don't need. All we can
> check is just whether the address to be translated is IO and is under a parent
> device which has no 'ranges' property.

The children should only be scanned after the I/O range has been
registered for the parent.

> > 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:
> > 
> >         if (arm64_extio_ops->pfout)                             \
> >                 arm64_extio_ops->pfout(arm64_extio_ops->devpara,\
> >                        addr - arm64_extio_ops->start, value, sizeof(type)); \
> > 
> I think there is some information needed sync.
> In the old patch-set, we don't bypass the pci_address_to_pio() after
> successfully of_translate_address(). In this way, we don't need to reserve any
> PIO space for our LPC since the logical port are from the same mapping
> algorithm. Based on this way, the port number in the device resource is logical
> one, then we need to subtract the start of the resource to get back the
> bus-local port.
> 
> From V3, we don't apply the mapping based on pci_address_to_pio(), the
> of_translate_address() return the bus-local port directly and store into
> relevant device resource. So, in the current arm64_extio_ops->pfout(), the
> reverse translation don't need anymore. The input "addr" is bus-local port now.

Ok, so this would have to be changed again: If we want to support multiple
bus domains, of_translate_address() must translate between the bus specific
address and the general Linux I/O port number. Even without doing that,
it seems nicer to not overlap the range of the first PCI host bridge.

	Arnd