linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] fpga: dfl: add generic support for MSIX interrupts

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: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2209260804500.363733@rhweight-WRK1>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:   matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     hao.wu@...el.com, yilun.xu@...el.com, russell.h.weight@...el.com,
        basheer.ahmed.muddebihal@...el.com, trix@...hat.com,
        mdf@...nel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tianfei.zhang@...el.com, corbet@....net,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
        niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, phil.edworthy@...esas.com,
        macro@...am.me.uk, johan@...nel.org, lukas@...ner.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] fpga: dfl: add generic support for MSIX
 interrupts



On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 05:17:43AM -0700, matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Define and use a DFHv1 parameter to add generic support for MSIX
>> interrupts for DFL devices.
>
> ...
>
>> +	if (fid != FEATURE_ID_AFU && fid != PORT_FEATURE_ID_ERROR &&
>> +	    fid != PORT_FEATURE_ID_UINT && fid != FME_FEATURE_ID_GLOBAL_ERR) {
>
>> +
>
> Unneeded blank line.

I will remove the blank line.

>
>> +		v = FIELD_GET(DFH_VERSION, readq(base));
>> +		switch (v) {
>
> This v...
>
>> +		case 0:
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		case 1:
>> +			v =  readq(base + DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP);
>
> Extra space.
>
> ...and this v are semantically different. It's quite hard to deduce their
> semantics.

I was trying to be consistent with the existing code where the read was 
stored in a temporary variable, v, and the FIELD_GET would be used for the 
specific field.  Will it be sufficiently clear if the v used above is 
changed to dfl_ver, and this use of v followed by FIELD_GET remains as is?

>
>> +			if (FIELD_GET(DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP_HAS_PARAMS, v)) {
>> +				off = dfl_find_param(base + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR, ofst,
>> +						     DFHv1_PARAM_ID_MSIX);
>
> I guess I have suggested to use temporary variable(s) here.
>
> 			void __iomem *dfhv1 = base + DFHv1...;
> 			void __iomem *nth;
>
>> +				if (off >= 0) {
>
> 					nth = dfhv1 + off;
>
>> +					ibase = readl(base + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR +
>> +						      off + DFHv1_PARAM_MSIX_STARTV);
>> +					inr = readl(base + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR +
>> +						    off + DFHv1_PARAM_MSIX_NUMV);
>
> 					ibase = readl(nth + DFHv1_PARAM_MSIX_STARTV);
> 					inr = readl(nth + DFHv1_PARAM_MSIX_NUMV);
>
>> +					dev_dbg(binfo->dev, "start %d num %d fid 0x%x\n",
>> +						ibase, inr, fid);
>> +				}
>> +			}
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		default:
>> +			dev_warn(binfo->dev, "unexpected DFH version %lld\n", v);
>> +			break;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>