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]

Message-ID: <20170131000914.GA11331@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:09:14 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     "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, john.garry@...wei.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 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.

> +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.

Bjorn