linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] soc: mediatek: devapc: add debug register for new IC support

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]

Message-ID: <1617862168.8874.13.camel@mtksdccf07>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 14:09:28 +0800
From:   Nina Wu <nina-cm.wu@...iatek.com>
To:     Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
        Neal Liu <neal.liu@...iatek.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>, <Jackson-kt.Chang@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] soc: mediatek: devapc: add debug register for
 new IC support

Hi, Matthias

On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 15:53 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> 
> On 01/04/2021 08:38, Nina Wu wrote:
> > From: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@...iatek.com>
> > 
> > There are 3 debug info registers in new ICs while in legacy ones,
> > we have only 2. When dumping the debug info, we need to check first
> > if the 3rd debug register exists and then we can konw how to decipher
> > the debug info.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > index bcf6e3c..af55c01 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > @@ -26,9 +26,19 @@ struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
> >  			u32 addr_h:4;
> >  			u32 resv:4;
> >  		} dbg0_bits;
> > +
> > +		/* Not used, reference only */
> > +		struct {
> > +			u32 dmnid:6;
> > +			u32 vio_w:1;
> > +			u32 vio_r:1;
> > +			u32 addr_h:4;
> > +			u32 resv:20;
> > +		} dbg0_bits_ver2;
> >  	};
> >  
> >  	u32 vio_dbg1;
> > +	u32 vio_dbg2;
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct mtk_devapc_data {
> > @@ -37,6 +47,7 @@ struct mtk_devapc_data {
> >  	u32 vio_sta_offset;
> >  	u32 vio_dbg0_offset;
> >  	u32 vio_dbg1_offset;
> > +	u32 vio_dbg2_offset;
> >  	u32 apc_con_offset;
> >  	u32 vio_shift_sta_offset;
> >  	u32 vio_shift_sel_offset;
> > @@ -158,12 +169,29 @@ static void devapc_extract_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> >  	struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs vio_dbgs;
> >  	void __iomem *vio_dbg0_reg;
> >  	void __iomem *vio_dbg1_reg;
> > +	void __iomem *vio_dbg2_reg;
> > +	u32 vio_addr, bus_id;
> >  
> >  	vio_dbg0_reg = ctx->base + ctx->data->vio_dbg0_offset;
> >  	vio_dbg1_reg = ctx->base + ctx->data->vio_dbg1_offset;
> > +	vio_dbg2_reg = ctx->base + ctx->data->vio_dbg2_offset;
> 
> We should read this only if we have version2 of the devapc.
> 

You're right.
It is not good to read vio_dbg2_reg in version one. Even though we will
only get the value from offset 0 (which is not expected) instead of
doing any real harm. (like causing bus hang)


> >  
> >  	vio_dbgs.vio_dbg0 = readl(vio_dbg0_reg);
> >  	vio_dbgs.vio_dbg1 = readl(vio_dbg1_reg);
> > +	vio_dbgs.vio_dbg2 = readl(vio_dbg2_reg);
> > +
> > +	if (!ctx->data->vio_dbg2_offset) {
> 
> I think we should add a version field to mtk_devapc_data to distinguish the two
> of them.

OK.
I will try to add this field in the next version

> 
> > +		/* arch version 1 */
> > +		bus_id = vio_dbgs.dbg0_bits.mstid;
> > +		vio_addr = vio_dbgs.vio_dbg1;
> > +	} else {
> > +		/* arch version 2 */
> > +		bus_id = vio_dbgs.vio_dbg1;
> > +		vio_addr = vio_dbgs.vio_dbg2;
> > +
> > +		/* To align with the bit definition of arch_ver 1 */
> > +		vio_dbgs.vio_dbg0 = (vio_dbgs.vio_dbg0 << 16);
> 
> That's magic, better add another variable domain_id and do here:
> domain_id = vio_dgbs.dbg0_bits_ver2.dmnid;
> 

OK.
I will fix it up in the next version.

Thanks

> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/* Print violation information */
> >  	if (vio_dbgs.dbg0_bits.vio_w)
> > @@ -172,8 +200,7 @@ static void devapc_extract_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> >  		dev_info(ctx->dev, "Read Violation\n");
> >  
> >  	dev_info(ctx->dev, "Bus ID:0x%x, Dom ID:0x%x, Vio Addr:0x%x\n",
> > -		 vio_dbgs.dbg0_bits.mstid, vio_dbgs.dbg0_bits.dmnid,
> > -		 vio_dbgs.vio_dbg1);
> > +		 bus_id, vio_dbgs.dbg0_bits.dmnid, vio_addr);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> >