linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] riscv: dts: starfive: add the missing monitor core

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]
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 15:09:51 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <uwu@...nowy.me>, <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>, <kernel@...il.dk>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <anup@...infault.org>
CC:     <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] riscv: dts: starfive: add the missing monitor core



On 13/07/2022 16:02, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2022-07-13星期三的 14:55 +0000，Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com写道：
>> On 13/07/2022 15:26, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>>>
>>> 在 2022-07-11星期一的 19:43 +0100，Conor Dooley写道：
>>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>>
>>>> The JH7100 has a 32 bit monitor core that is missing from the
>>>> device
>>>> tree. Add it (and its cpu-map entry) to more accurately reflect
>>>> the
>>>> actual topology of the SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7100.dtsi | 21
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7100.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7100.dtsi
>>>> index c617a61e26e2..92fce5b66d3d 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7100.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7100.dtsi
>>>> @@ -67,6 +67,23 @@ cpu1_intc: interrupt-controller {
>>>>                         };
>>>>                 };
>>>>
>>>> +               E24: cpu@2 {
>>>> +                       compatible = "sifive,e24", "riscv";
>>>> +                       reg = <2>;
>>>> +                       device_type = "cpu";
>>>> +                       i-cache-block-size = <32>;
>>>> +                       i-cache-sets = <256>;
>>>> +                       i-cache-size = <16384>;
>>>> +                       riscv,isa = "rv32imafc";
>>>> +                       status = "disabled";
>>>> +
>>>> +                       cpu2_intc: interrupt-controller {
>>>> +                               compatible = "riscv,cpu-intc";
>>>> +                               interrupt-controller;
>>>> +                               #interrupt-cells = <1>;
>>>> +                       };
>>>> +               };
>>>> +
>>>>                 cpu-map {
>>>>                         cluster0 {
>>>>                                 core0 {
>>>> @@ -76,6 +93,10 @@ core0 {
>>>>                                 core1 {
>>>>                                         cpu = <&U74_1>;
>>>>                                 };
>>>> +
>>>> +                               core2 {
>>>> +                                       cpu = <&E24>;
>>>> +                               };
>>>
>>> Sorry but I think this change makes the topology more inaccurate.
>>>
>>> The E24 core is very independent, just another CPU core connected
>>> the
>>> same bus -- even no coherency (E24 takes AHB, which is not
>>> coherency-
>>> sensible). Even the TAP of it is independent with the U74 TAP.
>>>
>>> And by default it does not boot any proper code (if a debugger is
>>> attached, it will discover that the E24 is in consistently fault at
>>> 0x0
>>> (mtvec is 0x0 and when fault it jumps to 0x0 and fault again),
>>> until
>>> its clock is just shutdown by Linux cleaning up unused clocks.)
>>>
>>> Personally I think it should be implemented as a remoteproc
>>> instead.
>>
>> Maybe I am missing something, but I don't quite get what the detail
>> of how we access this in code has to do with the devicetree?
>> It is added here in a disabled state, and will not be used by Linux.
>> The various SiFive SoCs & SiFive corecomplex users that have a hart
>> not capable of running Linux also have that hart documented in the
>> devicetree.
>> To me, what we are choosing to do with this hart does not really
>> matter very much, since this is a description of what the hardware
>> actually looks like.
> 
> The E24 is not in the core complex at all. It's just a dedicate CPU
> connected to another bus (well as I saw the document says the E24 bus
> is maximum 2G, I doubt whether it's the same bus with the U74 one).
> 
> The U74 MC only allows S5 management cores to be part of it, not E24.

So is the correct topology more like:
cpu-map {
        cluster0 {
                core0 {
                        cpu = <&U74_0>;
                };
                core1 {
                        cpu = <&U74_1>;
                };
        };
        cluster1 {
                core0 {
                        cpu = <&E24>;
                };
        };
};