linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 1/5] LIB: Indirect ISA/LPC port IO introduced

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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:34:24 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        "zhichang.yuan" <yuanzhichang@...ilicon.com>
CC:     <catalin.marinas@....com>, <will.deacon@....com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <rafael@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <brian.starkey@....com>, <olof@...om.net>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, <minyard@....org>,
        <liviu.dudau@....com>, <zourongrong@...il.com>,
        <gabriele.paoloni@...wei.com>, <zhichang.yuan02@...il.com>,
        <kantyzc@....com>, <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 1/5] LIB: Indirect ISA/LPC port IO introduced

On 31/01/2017 00:09, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 03:05:21PM +0800, zhichang.yuan wrote:
>> Low-pin-count interface is integrated into some SoCs. The accesses to those
>> peripherals under LPC make use of I/O ports rather than the memory mapped I/O.
>>
>> To drive these devices, this patch introduces a method named indirect-IO.
>
> It's slightly confusing to call this "indirect I/O" and then use
> "extio" for the filename and function prefix.  It'd be nice to use
> related names.

We will consider something more consistent.

>
>> +struct extio_node {
>> +	unsigned long bus_start;	/* bus start address */
>> +	unsigned long io_start;	/* io port token corresponding to bus_start */
>> +	size_t range_size;	/* size of the extio node operating range */
>> +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>> +	struct list_head list;
>> +	struct extio_ops *ops;	/* ops operating on this node */
>> +	void *devpara;	/* private parameter of the host device */
>> +};
>
> I wish we didn't have both struct io_range and struct extio_node.  It
> seems like they're both sort of trying to do the same thing.  Maybe
> this is the same as what Alex is saying.
>

I think so. I have just replied to Alex regarding this.

> Bjorn
>

Thanks,
John

> .
>