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:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:26:53 +0300
From:   Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@...uefel.me>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nikita Shubin <nshubin@...con.com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        "linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] remoteproc: imx_rproc: set pc on start

On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 11:01:22 -0600
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 23:40, <nikita.shubin@...uefel.me> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mathieue,
> >
> > Hi Nikita,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:33:08PM +0300, nikita.shubin@...uefel.me
> > wrote:
> >
> >  In case elf file interrupt vector is not supposed to be at OCRAM_S,
> >  it is needed to write elf entry point to OCRAM_S + 0x4, to boot M4
> >  firmware.
> >
> >  Otherwise firmware located anywhere besides OCRAM_S won't boot.
> >
> >  The firmware must set stack poiner as first instruction:
> >
> >  Reset_Handler:
> >      ldr sp, = __stack /* set stack pointer */
> >
> >  Signed-off-by: Nikita Shubin <NShubin@...con.com>
> >
> >
> > The address in the SoB has to match what is found in the "From:"
> > field of the email header. Checkpatch is complaining about that,
> > something I would have expected to be fixed before sending this set
> > out.
> >
> > Noted and will be fixed.
> >
> >  ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >  diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c index 3e72b6f38d4b..bebc58d0f711
> > 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> >  +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> >  @@ -45,6 +45,8 @@
> >
> >   #define IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX 8
> >
> >  +#define IMX_BOOT_PC 0x4
> >  +
> >   /**
> >    * struct imx_rproc_mem - slim internal memory structure
> >    * @cpu_addr: MPU virtual address of the memory region
> >  @@ -85,6 +87,7 @@ struct imx_rproc {
> >           const struct imx_rproc_dcfg *dcfg;
> >           struct imx_rproc_mem mem[IMX7D_RPROC_MEM_MAX];
> >           struct clk *clk;
> >  + void __iomem *bootreg;
> >   };
> >
> >   static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx7d[] = {
> >  @@ -162,11 +165,16 @@ static int imx_rproc_start(struct rproc
> > *rproc) struct device *dev = priv->dev;
> >           int ret;
> >
> >  + /* write entry point to program counter */
> >  + writel(rproc->bootaddr, priv->bootreg);
> >
> >
> > What happens on all the other IMX systems where this fix is not
> > needed? Will they continue to work properly?
> >
> > Yes, my bad, it is also needed for IMX6 (but even so i need to
> > study this topic more carefully), this should be applied
> > exclusively for imx7d for now, and if will be needed someone with
> > imx6 hardware to test on can extend this on imx6 also.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  +
> >           ret = regmap_update_bits(priv->regmap, dcfg->src_reg,
> >                                    dcfg->src_mask, dcfg->src_start);
> >           if (ret)
> >                   dev_err(dev, "Failed to enable M4!\n");
> >
> >  + dev_info(&rproc->dev, "Started from 0x%x\n", rproc->bootaddr);
> >  +
> >           return ret;
> >   }
> >
> >  @@ -182,6 +190,9 @@ static int imx_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >           if (ret)
> >                   dev_err(dev, "Failed to stop M4!\n");
> >
> >  + /* clear entry points */
> >  + writel(0, priv->bootreg);
> >  +
> >           return ret;
> >   }
> >
> >  @@ -243,7 +254,8 @@ static void *imx_rproc_da_to_va(struct rproc
> > *rproc, u64 da, int len) static const struct rproc_ops
> > imx_rproc_ops = { .start = imx_rproc_start,
> >           .stop = imx_rproc_stop,
> >  - .da_to_va = imx_rproc_da_to_va,
> >  + .da_to_va = imx_rproc_da_to_va,
> >  + .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
> >
> >
> > How is this useful? Sure it will set rproc->bootaddr in
> > rproc_fw_boot() but what good does that do when it is invariably
> > set again in imx_rproc_start() ?
> >
> > The priv->bootreg is the address where we are writing Entry Point
> > and it is fixed, 0x04 address is translated to 0x00180004, so don't
> > quite understand you we are writing rproc->bootaddr into
> > priv->bootreg, not wiseversa.
> >
> 
> What is your reason to set ops->get_boot_addr ?  How does that help
> the work done in this patch?

The reason is the following :

remoteproc_core.c:
| rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
| rproc->bootaddr = rproc_get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);

remoteproc_internal.h
| static inline
| u32 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware
*fw) | {
| 	if (rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
| 		return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
|
|	return 0;
| }

> 
> >
> >   };
> >
> >   static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
> >  @@ -360,6 +372,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_probe(struct
> > platform_device *pdev) goto err_put_rproc;
> >           }
> >
> >  + priv->bootreg = imx_rproc_da_to_va(rproc, IMX_BOOT_PC,
> > sizeof(u32)); +
> >           /*
> >            * clk for M4 block including memory. Should be
> >            * enabled before .start for FW transfer.
> >  --
> >  2.25.1
> >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ