| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 08:56:53 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>
To: Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>
Cc: Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@...omium.org>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC,5/5] mfd: cros_ec: add EC host command support using rpmsg.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:39 AM Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Guenter,
>
> Missatge de Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com> del dia dj., 3 de gen.
> 2019 a les 17:08:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:06 AM Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Many thanks for sending this. Please, add Guenter and me for next
> > > versions, we are interested in it, thanks :)
> > >
> > > Missatge de Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@...omium.org> del dia dc., 26 de des.
> > > 2018 a les 8:57:
> > > >
> > > > Add EC host command support through rpmsg.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pi-Hsun Shih <pihsun@...omium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c | 9 ++
> > > > drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig | 8 ++
> > > > drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_rpmsg.c | 164 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h | 1 +
> > > > include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h | 2 +
> > > > 6 files changed, 185 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_rpmsg.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> > > > index 2d0fee488c5aa8..67983853413d07 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/cros_ec_dev.c
> > > > @@ -414,6 +414,15 @@ static int ec_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > device_initialize(&ec->class_dev);
> > > > cdev_init(&ec->cdev, &fops);
> > > >
> > > > + if (cros_ec_check_features(ec, EC_FEATURE_SCP)) {
> > > > + dev_info(dev, "SCP detected.\n");
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Help userspace differentiating ECs from SCP,
> > > > + * regardless of the probing order.
> > > > + */
> > > > + ec_platform->ec_name = CROS_EC_DEV_SCP_NAME;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why userspace should know that this is an SCP? From the userspace
> > > point of view shouldn't be this transparent, we don't do distinctions
> > > when the transport layer is i2c, spi or lpc, and I think that the
> > > cros_ec_rpmsg driver is a cros-ec transport layer, like these. So, I
> > > think that this is not needed.
> > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Add the class device
> > > > * Link to the character device for creating the /dev entry
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig
> > > > index 16b1615958aa2d..b03d68eb732177 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -72,6 +72,14 @@ config CROS_EC_SPI
> > > > response time cannot be guaranteed, we support ignoring
> > > > 'pre-amble' bytes before the response actually starts.
> > > >
> > > > +config CROS_EC_RPMSG
> > > > + tristate "ChromeOS Embedded Controller (rpmsg)"
> > > > + depends on MFD_CROS_EC && RPMSG
> > >
> > > I think that this driver is DT-only, && OF ?
> > >
> > > > + help
> > > > + If you say Y here, you get support for talking to the ChromeOS EC
> > > > + through rpmsg. This uses a simple byte-level protocol with a
> > > > + checksum.
> > > > +
> > > > config CROS_EC_LPC
> > > > tristate "ChromeOS Embedded Controller (LPC)"
> > > > depends on MFD_CROS_EC && ACPI && (X86 || COMPILE_TEST)
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
> > > > index cd591bf872bbe9..3e3190af2b50f4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile
> > > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ cros_ec_ctl-objs := cros_ec_sysfs.o cros_ec_lightbar.o \
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_CTL) += cros_ec_ctl.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_I2C) += cros_ec_i2c.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_SPI) += cros_ec_spi.o
> > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_RPMSG) += cros_ec_rpmsg.o
> > > > cros_ec_lpcs-objs := cros_ec_lpc.o cros_ec_lpc_reg.o
> > > > cros_ec_lpcs-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC) += cros_ec_lpc_mec.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC) += cros_ec_lpcs.o
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_rpmsg.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_rpmsg.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 00000000000000..f123ca6d1c029c
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_rpmsg.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +//
> > > > +// Copyright 2018 Google LLC.
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/cros_ec.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/rpmsg.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * cros_ec_cmd_xfer_rpmsg - Transfer a message over rpmsg and receive the reply
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This is only used for old EC proto version, and is not supported for this
> > > > + * driver.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @ec_dev: ChromeOS EC device
> > > > + * @ec_msg: Message to transfer
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int cros_ec_cmd_xfer_rpmsg(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> > > > + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * cros_ec_pkt_xfer_rpmsg - Transfer a packet over rpmsg and receive the reply
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @ec_dev: ChromeOS EC device
> > > > + * @ec_msg: Message to transfer
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int cros_ec_pkt_xfer_rpmsg(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev,
> > > > + struct cros_ec_command *ec_msg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct ec_host_response *response;
> > > > + struct rpmsg_device *rpdev = ec_dev->priv;
> > > > + int len;
> > > > + u8 sum;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + ec_msg->result = 0;
> > > > + len = cros_ec_prepare_tx(ec_dev, ec_msg);
> > > > + dev_dbg(ec_dev->dev, "prepared, len=%d\n", len);
> > > > +
> > > > + // TODO: This currently relies on that mtk_rpmsg send actually blocks
> > > > + // until ack. Should do the wait here instead.
> > >
> > > Use standard C style comments.
> > >
> > > > + ret = rpmsg_send(rpdev->ept, ec_dev->dout, len);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Remove that empty line.
> > >
> > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > + dev_err(ec_dev->dev, "rpmsg send failed\n");
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* check response error code */
> > > > + response = (struct ec_host_response *)ec_dev->din;
> > > > + ec_msg->result = response->result;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = cros_ec_check_result(ec_dev, ec_msg);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + goto exit;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (response->data_len > ec_msg->insize) {
> > > > + dev_err(ec_dev->dev, "packet too long (%d bytes, expected %d)",
> > > > + response->data_len, ec_msg->insize);
> > > > + ret = -EMSGSIZE;
> > > > + goto exit;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* copy response packet payload and compute checksum */
> > > > + memcpy(ec_msg->data, ec_dev->din + sizeof(*response),
> > > > + response->data_len);
> > > > +
> > > > + sum = 0;
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < sizeof(*response) + response->data_len; i++)
> > > > + sum += ec_dev->din[i];
> > > > +
> > > > + if (sum) {
> > > > + dev_err(ec_dev->dev, "bad packet checksum, calculated %x\n",
> > > > + sum);
> > > > + ret = -EBADMSG;
> > > > + goto exit;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = response->data_len;
> > > > +exit:
> > > > + if (ec_msg->command == EC_CMD_REBOOT_EC)
> > > > + msleep(EC_REBOOT_DELAY_MS);
> > >
> > > Can you explain why this sleep is needed?
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int cros_ec_rpmsg_callback(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, void *data,
> > > > + int len, void *priv, u32 src)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(&rpdev->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (len > ec_dev->din_size) {
> > > > + dev_warn(ec_dev->dev,
> > > > + "ipi received length %d > din_size, truncating", len);
> > > > + len = ec_dev->din_size;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + memcpy(ec_dev->din, data, len);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int cros_ec_rpmsg_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct device *dev = &rpdev->dev;
> > > > +
> > > Remove that empty line
> > >
> > > > + struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + ec_dev = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*ec_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > + if (!ec_dev)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + ec_dev->dev = dev;
> > > > + ec_dev->priv = rpdev;
> > > > + ec_dev->cmd_xfer = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_rpmsg;
> > > > + ec_dev->pkt_xfer = cros_ec_pkt_xfer_rpmsg;
> > > > + ec_dev->phys_name = dev_name(&rpdev->dev);
> > > > + ec_dev->din_size = sizeof(struct ec_host_response) +
> > > > + sizeof(struct ec_response_get_protocol_info);
> > > > + ec_dev->dout_size = sizeof(struct ec_host_request);
> > > > + dev_set_drvdata(dev, ec_dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = cros_ec_register(ec_dev);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > >
> > > I'd add an error message here
> > >
> > > dev_err(dev, "cannot register EC\n"
> > >
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void cros_ec_rpmsg_remove(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
> > >
> > > This function will not be needed after apply [1]. I would recommend
> > > base your patches on top of [2]
> > >
> > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/12/672
> > > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/12/679
> > >
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = dev_get_drvdata(&rpdev->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + cros_ec_remove(ec_dev);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > How this driver is instantiated?
> > >
> > > I expect something like this here (like the other transport layers)
> > >
> > > static const struct of_device_id cros_ec_rpmsg_of_match[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "google,cros-ec-rpmsg", },
> > > { }
> > > };
> > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, cros_ec_rpmsg_of_match);
> > >
> > > And the DT containing the compatible = "google,cros-ec-rpmsg" like the
> > > other cros-ec transport layers.
> > >
> > > > +static const struct rpmsg_device_id cros_ec_rpmsg_device_id[] = {
> > > > + { .name = "cros-ec-rpmsg", },
> > > > + { /* sentinel */ },
> > >
> > > I got convinced that the '/* sentinel */' comment doesn't means
> > > anything, so use { } only here, remove the comment and the last comma
> > > (there is nothing to separate)
> > > + { }
> > >
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +static struct rpmsg_driver cros_ec_driver_rpmsg = {
> > > > + .drv.name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> > >
> > > And something like this here
> > > .drv = {
> > > .name = "cros-ec-rpmsg",
> > > .of_match_table = cros_ec_rpmsg_of_match,
> > > },
> > >
> > > > + .id_table = cros_ec_rpmsg_device_id,
> > > > + .probe = cros_ec_rpmsg_probe,
> > > > + .remove = cros_ec_rpmsg_remove,
> > > > + .callback = cros_ec_rpmsg_callback,
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +module_rpmsg_driver(cros_ec_driver_rpmsg);
> > > > +
> > > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> > > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("ChromeOS EC multi function device (rpmsg)");
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h
> > > > index de8b588c8776da..fd297cf8f97295 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec.h
> > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > #define CROS_EC_DEV_NAME "cros_ec"
> > > > #define CROS_EC_DEV_PD_NAME "cros_pd"
> > > > +#define CROS_EC_DEV_SCP_NAME "cros_scp"
> > >
> > > I think this definition is not needed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * The EC is unresponsive for a time after a reboot command. Add a
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > > index fc91082d4c357b..3e5da6e93b2f42 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h
> > > > @@ -856,6 +856,8 @@ enum ec_feature_code {
> > > > EC_FEATURE_RTC = 27,
> > > > /* EC supports CEC commands */
> > > > EC_FEATURE_CEC = 35,
> > > > + /* The MCU exposes a SCP */
> > > > + EC_FEATURE_SCP = 39,
> > >
> > > Same here, I think this is not needed.
> >
> > It might be needed for instantiation, ie instantiate only if the
> > feature is supported.
> >
>
> Actually, in this code, this is only used to change the EC name (and
> as I commented above I think is not really needed). If I understand
> correctly the purpose of these patches is to be able to talk with the
> SCP via remoteproc. The SCP is a small Cortex M4 within MT8183
> processor that will run the EC codebase. So, the remoteproc message
> driver looks more a transport driver (like the cros-ec-spi/i2c/lpc)
> than a subdev driver to me. So I'd expect this be instantiated via DT
> like the other transport layers, i.e.
>
> cros-ec@0 {
> compatible = "google,cros-ec-spi";
> };
>
> or
>
> cros-ec@ef {
> compatible = "google,cros-ec-i2c";
> };
>
> or
> cros-ec {
> compatible = "google,cros-ec-rpmsg";
> };
>
> If I am not wrong we don't have an EC_FEATURE_SPI or EC_FEATURE_I2C,
> so I think will be better instantiate in the same way?
>
Yes, you are correct. Thanks for the explanation.
Guenter
> Thanks,
> Enric
>
> > Guenter
> >
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > #define EC_FEATURE_MASK_0(event_code) (1UL << (event_code % 32))
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1.415.g653613c723-goog
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Enric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists