linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar space.

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: <BN9PR11MB5483025087E3393B8F69EF6AE33A9@BN9PR11MB5483.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:48:32 +0000
From:   "Zhang, Tianfei" <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
To:     "Wu, Hao" <hao.wu@...el.com>, "trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
        "mdf@...nel.org" <mdf@...nel.org>,
        "Xu, Yilun" <yilun.xu@...el.com>,
        "linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
        Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar
 space.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wu, Hao <hao.wu@...el.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 11:38 AM
> To: Zhang, Tianfei <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>; trix@...hat.com;
> mdf@...nel.org; Xu, Yilun <yilun.xu@...el.com>; linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-doc@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: corbet@....net; Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar space.
> 
> > Subject: [PATCH v1 3/7] fpga: dfl: Allow for ports with no local bar space.
> >
> > From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > From a fpga partial reconfiguration standpoint, a port may not be
> > connected any local BAR space.  The port could be connected to a
> > different PCIe Physical Function (PF) or Virtual Function (VF), in
> > which case another driver instance would manage the endpoint.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tianfei Zhang <tianfei.zhang@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c index
> > 4d68719e608f..8abd9b408403 100644
> > --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl-pci.c
> > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ static int find_dfls_by_default(struct pci_dev *pcidev,
> >  		v = readq(base + FME_HDR_CAP);
> >  		port_num = FIELD_GET(FME_CAP_NUM_PORTS, v);
> >
> > +		dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "port_num = %d\n", port_num);
> 
> Do we really need this info here? in FME there is one sysfs interface for port
> num.

I think it is not necessary, I will remove it.

> 
> >  		WARN_ON(port_num > MAX_DFL_FPGA_PORT_NUM);
> >
> >  		for (i = 0; i < port_num; i++) {
> > @@ -258,6 +259,13 @@ static int find_dfls_by_default(struct pci_dev *pcidev,
> >  			 */
> >  			bar = FIELD_GET(FME_PORT_OFST_BAR_ID, v);
> >  			offset = FIELD_GET(FME_PORT_OFST_DFH_OFST, v);
> > +			if (bar >= PCI_STD_NUM_BARS) {
> > +				dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "skipping port without
> > local BAR space %d\n",
> > +					 bar);
> > +				continue;
> 
> Is this change for IOFS? From patch #1, we have FME and PORT on PF0, so we
> should have a BAR for PORT on PF0, is my understanding correct?

Yes, we have a Port device on each PR slot in IOFS, but for " Multiple VFs per PR slot" model,
the Port device would not connected to AFU/PR slot (the BarID of Port device should be set to invalid), 
and we just can access PR slot/AFU resource via VFs.

> 
> Thanks
> Hao
> 
> > +			} else {
> > +				dev_info(&pcidev->dev, "BAR %d offset %u\n",
> > bar, offset);
> > +			}
> >  			start = pci_resource_start(pcidev, bar) + offset;
> >  			len = pci_resource_len(pcidev, bar) - offset;
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1