linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 12/23] ata: libahci: Extend port-cmd flags set with port 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <903e273a-9dc5-f0df-5391-e96e63318323@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:28:18 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Pavel Parkhomenko <Pavel.Parkhomenko@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/23] ata: libahci: Extend port-cmd flags set with
 port capabilities

On 2022/06/16 5:58, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 05:32:41PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 6/10/22 17:17, Serge Semin wrote:
>>> Currently not all of the Port-specific capabilities listed in the
>>
>> s/listed/are listed
>>
>>> PORT_CMD-enumeration. Let's extend that set with the Cold Presence
>>> Detection and Mechanical Presence Switch attached to the Port flags [1] so
>>> to closeup the set of the platform-specific port-capabilities flags.  Note
>>> these flags are supposed to be set by the platform firmware if there is
>>> one. Alternatively as we are about to do they can be set by means of the
>>> OF properties.
>>>
>>> While at it replace PORT_IRQ_DEV_ILCK with PORT_IRQ_DMPS and fix the
>>> comment there. In accordance with [2] that IRQ flag is supposed to
>>> indicate the state of the signal coming from the Mechanical Presence
>>> Switch.
>>>
>>> [1] Serial ATA AHCI 1.3.1 Specification, p.27
>>> [2] Serial ATA AHCI 1.3.1 Specification, p.24, p.88
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changelog v4:
>>> - Fix the DMPS macros name in the patch log. (@Sergei Shtylyov)
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/ata/ahci.h | 7 ++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/ahci.h b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
>>> index 7d834deefeb9..f501531bd1b3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/ahci.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/ahci.h
>>> @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ enum {
>>>  	PORT_IRQ_BAD_PMP	= (1 << 23), /* incorrect port multiplier */
>>>  
>>>  	PORT_IRQ_PHYRDY		= (1 << 22), /* PhyRdy changed */
>>> -	PORT_IRQ_DEV_ILCK	= (1 << 7), /* device interlock */
>>> +	PORT_IRQ_DMPS		= (1 << 7), /* mechanical presence status */
>>>  	PORT_IRQ_CONNECT	= (1 << 6), /* port connect change status */
>>>  	PORT_IRQ_SG_DONE	= (1 << 5), /* descriptor processed */
>>>  	PORT_IRQ_UNK_FIS	= (1 << 4), /* unknown FIS rx'd */
>>> @@ -166,6 +166,8 @@ enum {
>>>  	PORT_CMD_ATAPI		= (1 << 24), /* Device is ATAPI */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_FBSCP		= (1 << 22), /* FBS Capable Port */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_ESP		= (1 << 21), /* External Sata Port */
>>> +	PORT_CMD_CPD		= (1 << 20), /* Cold Presence Detection */
>>> +	PORT_CMD_MPSP		= (1 << 19), /* Mechanical Presence Switch */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_HPCP		= (1 << 18), /* HotPlug Capable Port */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_PMP		= (1 << 17), /* PMP attached */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_LIST_ON	= (1 << 15), /* cmd list DMA engine running */
>>> @@ -181,6 +183,9 @@ enum {
>>>  	PORT_CMD_ICC_PARTIAL	= (0x2 << 28), /* Put i/f in partial state */
>>>  	PORT_CMD_ICC_SLUMBER	= (0x6 << 28), /* Put i/f in slumber state */
>>>  
>>> +	PORT_CMD_CAP		= PORT_CMD_HPCP | PORT_CMD_MPSP |
>>> +				  PORT_CMD_CPD | PORT_CMD_ESP | PORT_CMD_FBSCP,
>>
> 
>> What is this one for ? A comment above it would be nice.
> 
> Isn't it obviously inferrable from the definition and the item name?

I am guessing from the name. Am I guessing OK ? A comment would still be nice.
Why just these bits ? There are more cap/support indicator bits in that port cmd
bitfield. So why this particular set of bits ? What do they mean all together ?

Sure I can go and read the specs to figure it out. But again, a comment would
avoid readers of the code to have to decrypt all that.

> 
> -Sergey
> 
>>
>>> +
>>>  	/* PORT_FBS bits */
>>>  	PORT_FBS_DWE_OFFSET	= 16, /* FBS device with error offset */
>>>  	PORT_FBS_ADO_OFFSET	= 12, /* FBS active dev optimization offset */
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Damien Le Moal
>> Western Digital Research


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research