| 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, 19 Sep 2019 05:36:56 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
CC: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V6 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
Hi Jassi,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:00 AM Andre Przywara
> <andre.przywara@....com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > If this is the data structure that this mailbox controller uses, I
> > > > would expect this to be documented somewhere, or even exported.
> > >
> > > Export this structure in include/linux/mailbox/smc-mailbox.h?
> >
> > For instance, even though I am not sure this is really desired or helpful, since
> we expect a generic mailbox client (the SCPI or SCMI driver) to deal with that
> mailbox.
> >
> > But at least the expected format should be documented, which could just be
> in writing, not necessarily in code.
> >
> Yes, the packet format is specified by the controller and defined in some
> header for clients to include. Other platforms do that already.
So you prefer add the structure in include/linux/mailbox/smc-mailbox.h?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
>
>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long,
> > > > > + unsigned long, unsigned long,
> > > > > + unsigned long, unsigned long,
> > > > > + unsigned long); static
> smc_mbox_fn
> > > > > +*invoke_smc_mbox_fn;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void
> > > > > +*data) { struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
> > > > > +struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd *cmd = data; unsigned long ret;
> > > > > + u32 function_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + function_id = chan_data->function_id; if (!function_id)
> > > > > + function_id = cmd->function_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (function_id & BIT(30)) {
> > > >
> > > > if (ARM_SMCCC_IS_64(function_id)) {
> > >
> > > ok
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + ret = invoke_smc_mbox_fn(function_id,
> cmd->args_smccc64[0],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc64[1],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc64[2],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc64[3],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc64[4],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc64[5]); }
> else
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + ret = invoke_smc_mbox_fn(function_id,
> cmd->args_smccc32[0],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc32[1],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc32[2],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc32[3],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc32[4],
> > > > > + cmd->args_smccc32[5]); }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)ret);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static unsigned long __invoke_fn_hvc(unsigned int function_id,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg0, unsigned
> long arg1,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg2, unsigned
> long arg3,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg4, unsigned
> long
> > > > > +arg5) { struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
> > > > > + arg5, 0, &res);
> > > > > + return res.a0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static unsigned long __invoke_fn_smc(unsigned int function_id,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg0, unsigned
> long arg1,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg2, unsigned
> long arg3,
> > > > > + unsigned long arg4, unsigned
> long
> > > > > +arg5) { struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + arm_smccc_smc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
> > > > > + arg5, 0, &res);
> > > > > + return res.a0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static const struct mbox_chan_ops arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops = {
> > > > > + .send_data = arm_smc_send_data,
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int arm_smc_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > > > > +struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> > > > > +struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data; int ret;
> > > > > + u32 function_id = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "arm,smc-mbox"))
> > > > > + invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_smc; else
> > > > > + invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_hvc;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL); if
> > > > > + (!mbox)
> > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mbox->num_chans = 1;
> > > > > + mbox->chans = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox->chans),
> > > > > + mbox->GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > + if (!mbox->chans)
> > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + chan_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chan_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > + if (!chan_data)
> > > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "arm,func-id",
> > > > > + &function_id); chan_data->function_id = function_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mbox->chans->con_priv = chan_data;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mbox->txdone_poll = false;
> > > > > + mbox->txdone_irq = false;
> > > >
> > > > Don't we need to provide something to confirm reception to the
> > > > client? In our case we can set this as soon as the smc/hvc returns.
> > >
> > > As smc/hvc returns, it means the transfer is over and receive is done.
> >
> > I understand that, but was wondering if the Linux mailbox framework knows
> about that? In my older version I was calling mbox_chan_received_data()
> after the smc call returned.
> >
> The code already does that at the end of send_data
>
> > Also there is mbox_chan_txdone() with which a controller driver can signal
> TX completion explicitly.
> >
> No. Controller can use that only if it has specified txdone_irq, which is not the
> case here.
>
> Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists