linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 0/9] LPC: legacy ISA I/O support

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: <5b7024af-33c8-48c8-22bc-8d36ca3eadd8@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:48:21 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
        <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <arnd@...db.de>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <olof@...om.net>, <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
        <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     <joe@...ches.com>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <minyard@....org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <frowand.list@...il.com>, <agraf@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 0/9] LPC: legacy ISA I/O support

On 01/03/2018 19:52, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 00:40 +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> > This patchset supports the IPMI-bt device attached to the Low-Pin-
>> > Count
>> > interface implemented on Hisilicon Hip06/Hip07 SoC.
>> >                         -----------
>> >                         | LPC host|
>> >                         |         |
>> >                         -----------
>> >                              |
>> >                 _____________V_______________LPC
>> >                   |                       |
>> >                   V                       V
>> >                                      ------------
>> >                                      |  BT(ipmi)|
>> >                                      ------------
>> >
>> > When master accesses those peripherals beneath the Hip06/Hip07 LPC, a
>> > specific
>> > LPC driver is needed to make LPC host generate the standard LPC I/O
>> > cycles with
>> > the target peripherals'I/O port addresses. But on curent arm64 world,
>> > there is
>> > no real I/O accesses. All the I/O operations through in/out accessors
>> > are based
>> > on MMIO ranges; on Hip06/Hip07 LPC the I/O accesses are performed
>> > through driver
>> > specific accessors rather than MMIO.
>> > To solve this issue and keep the relevant existing peripherals'
>> > drivers untouched,
>> > this patchset:
>> >    - introduces a generic I/O space management framework, logical PIO,
>> > to support
>> >       I/O operations on host controllers operating either on MMIO
>> > buses or on buses
>> >      requiring specific driver I/O accessors;
>> >    - redefines the in/out accessors to provide a unified interface for
>> > both MMIO
>> >      and driver specific I/O operations. Using logical PIO, th call of
>> > in/out() from
>> >      the host children drivers, such as ipmi-si, will be redirected to
>> > the
>> >      corresponding device-specific I/O hooks to perform the I/O
>> > accesses.
>> >
>> > Based on this patch-set, all the I/O accesses to Hip06/Hip07 LPC
>> > peripherals can
>> > be supported without any changes on the existing ipmi-si driver.
>> >
>> > The whole patchset has been tested on Hip07 D05 board both using DTB
>> > and ACPI.
>> >
> I did a review and don't see the patch 8 is ready to go.
>
> So, to move things forward I may suggest to reorder series that some
> small preparation stuff can go first w/o dependency to the actual Logic
> PIO / LPC.
>


Hi Andy,

As mentioned in the reply to patch #8, as a practical exercise I don't 
see the reason to change it now. Let's conclude that issue first before 
deciding on patchset revising.

Thanks very much,
John