| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <854521ed-b0f9-0f0f-2cd7-5ad11b2d059a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 15:15:08 +0800
From: "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
<vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: cheol.yong.kim@...el.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
masonccyang@...c.com.tw, anders.roxell@...aro.org, vigneshr@...com,
arnd@...db.de, hauke.mehrtens@...el.com, richard@....at,
brendanhiggins@...gle.com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, qi-ming.wu@...el.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel
LGM SoC
Hi Boris,
Thank you very much for the prompt review and suggestions...
On 4/5/2020 3:08 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:02:35 +0800
> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>> On 30/4/2020 9:01 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:36:00 +0200
>>> Boris Brezillon<boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:07:03 +0800
>>>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
>>>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is, is it the same value we have in nand_pa or it is
>>>>>>>> different?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Different address which is 0xE1400000 NAND_BASE_PHY address.
>>>>>> Then why didn't you tell me they didn't match when I suggested to pass
>>>>> sorry, because you keep asking nand_pa after that only I realized that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> nand_pa? So now the question is, what does this address represent?
>>>>> EBU-MODULE
>>>>> _________ _______________________
>>>>> | | | |NAND CTRL |
>>>>> | FPI BUS |==>| CS0(0x174) | 0xE100 ( 0xE14/0xE1C) NAND_PHY_BASE
>>>>> |_________| |_CS1(0x17C)_|__________ |
>>>>>
>>>>> EBU_CONRTROLLER_BASE : 0xE0F0_0000
>>>>> HSNAND_BASE: 0xE100_0000
>>>>> NAND_CS0: 0xE140_0000
>>>>> NAND_CS1: 0xE1C0_0000
>>>>>
>>>>> MEM_REGION_BASE_CS0: 0x17400 (internal to ebu controller )
>>>>> MEM_REGION_BASE_CS1: 0x17C00
>>>>>
>>>> Hm, I wonder if we shouldn't use a 'ranges' property to describe this
>>>> address translation. Something like
>>>>
>>>> ebu@xxx {
>>>> ranges = <0x17400000 0xe1400000 0x1000>,
>>>> <0x17c00000 0xe1c00000 0x1000>;
>>>> reg = <0x17400000>, <0x17c00000>;
>>>> reg-names = "cs-0", "cs-1";
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The translated address (0xE1X00000) will be available in res->start,
>>>> and the non-translated one (0x17X00000) can be retrieved with
>>>> of_get_address(). All you'd have to do then would be calculate the
>>>> mask:
>>>>
>>>> mask = (translated_address & original_address) >> 22;
>>>> num_comp_bits = fls(mask);
>>>> WARN_ON(mask != GENMASK(num_comp_bits - 1, 0));
>>>>
>>>> Which allows you to properly set the ADDR_SEL() register without
>>>> relying on some hardcoded values:
>>>>
>>>> writel(original_address | EBU_ADDR_SEL_REGEN |
>>>> EBU_ADDR_COMP_BITS(num_comp_bits),
>>>> ebu_host->ebu + EBU_ADDR_SEL(csid));
>>>>
>>>> That's quite important if we want to merge the xway NAND driver with
>>>> this one.
>>> Looks like the translation is done at the FPI bus declaration level (see
>>> [1]). We really need to see the big picture to take a wise decision
>>> about the bindings. Would you mind pasting your dsti/dts files
>>> somewhere? It feels like the NAND controller is a sub-part of a more
>>> generic 'memory' controller, in which case the NAND controller should be
>>> declared as a child of this generic memory bus (called localbus in [1],
>>> but maybe EBU is more accurate).
>>>
>>> [1]https://github.com/xieyaxiongfly/Atheros_CSI_tool_OpenWRT_src/blob/master/target/linux/lantiq/files-4.14/arch/mips/boot/dts/vr9.dtsi#L162
>>
>> ebu_nand: ebu_nand@...00000 {
>> compatible = "intel,lgm-ebu-nand";
>> reg = <0xe0f00000 0x100
>> 0xe1000000 0x300
>> 0xe1400000 0x80000
>> 0xe1c00000 0x10000>;
>> reg-names = "ebunand", "hsnand", "nand_cs0", nand_cs1";
>> dmas = <&dma0 8>, <&dma0 9>;
>> dma-names = "ebu_rx", "ebu_tx";
>> clocks = <&cgu0 LGM_GCLK_EBU>;
>> };
>>
>>
>> &ebu_nand {
>> status = "disabled";
>> nand,cs = <1>;
>> nand-ecc-mode = "hw";
>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>> pinctrl-0 = <&ebu_nand_base &ebu_cs1>;
>> };
>>
>>>
> Ok. If I understand the SoC topology correctly it should actually be
> something like that:
>
> {
> ...
> fpi@...xx {
> compatible = "intel,lgm-fpi", "simple-bus";
>
> /* You might have other ranges to define here */
> ranges = <0x16000000 0xe0000000 0x1000000>;
>
> ...
Sorry, we do not have fpi tree node in our dts/dtsi file instead we have
the below one.. , that also not included the major peripherals
controllers node.
/* Special part from CPU core */
core: core {
compatible = "intel,core", "simple-bus";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
ranges;
ioapic1: interrupt-controller@...00000 {
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
#address-cells = <0>;
compatible = "intel,ce4100-ioapic";
interrupt-controller;
reg = <0xfec00000 0x1000>;
nr_entries = <256>;
};
hpet: timer@...00000 {
compatible = "intel,ce4100-hpet";
reg = <0xfed00000 0x400>;
};
lapic0: interrupt-controller@...00000 {
compatible = "intel,ce4100-lapic";
reg = <0xfee00000 0x1000>;
no_pic_mode;
};
};
other than this, rest all in independent node .
Thanks!
Regards
Vadivel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists