linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4g-hO5yz1bod6X+ZrL_8-6CRBvf==pB3sbuBzZmsT7Kng@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 23:41:16 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com> wrote:
>
> CXL devices contain an array of capabilities that describe the
> interactions software can interact with the device, or firmware running
> on the device. A CXL compliant device must implement the device status
> and the mailbox capability. A CXL compliant memory device must implement
> the memory device capability.
>
> Each of the capabilities can [will] provide an offset within the MMIO
> region for interacting with the CXL device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cxl/cxl.h | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/cxl/mem.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/cxl.h
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxl.h b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..02858ae63d6d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxl.h
[..]
> +static inline u32 __cxl_raw_read_reg32(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, u32 reg)

Going through my reworks and the "raw" jumped out at me. My typical
interpretation of "raw" in respect to register access macros is the
difference between readl() and __raw_readl()  which means "don't do
bus endian swizzling, and don't do a memory clobber barrier". Any
heartburn to drop the "raw"?

...is it only me that reacts that way?