| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2023 04:08:08 +0530
From: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
<a39.skl@...il.com>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
<quic_saipraka@...cinc.com>, <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>,
<quic_molvera@...cinc.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<qipl.kernel.upstream@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iommu/arm-smmu: add ACTLR data and support for SM8550
On 11/4/2023 3:31 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 23:53, Bibek Kumar Patro
> <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add ACTLR data table for SM8550 along with support for
>> same including SM8550 specific implementation operations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bibek Kumar Patro <quic_bibekkum@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>> index 68c1f4908473..590b7c285299 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu-qcom.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,64 @@ struct actlr_data {
>> u32 actlr;
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct actlr_data sm8550_apps_actlr_data[] = {
>> + { 0x18a0, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x18e0, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x0800, 0x0020, 0x00000001 },
>> + { 0x1800, 0x00c0, 0x00000001 },
>> + { 0x1820, 0x0000, 0x00000001 },
>> + { 0x1860, 0x0000, 0x00000001 },
>> + { 0x0c01, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c02, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c03, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c04, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c05, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c06, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c07, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c08, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c09, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c0c, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c0d, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c0e, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x0c0f, 0x0020, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1961, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1962, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1963, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1964, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1965, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1966, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1967, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1968, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1969, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x196c, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x196d, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x196e, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x196f, 0x0000, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c1, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c2, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c3, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c4, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c5, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c6, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c7, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c8, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19c9, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19cc, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19cd, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19ce, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x19cf, 0x0010, 0x00000303 },
>> + { 0x1c00, 0x0002, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1c01, 0x0000, 0x00000001 },
>> + { 0x1920, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1923, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1924, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1940, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1941, 0x0004, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1943, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1944, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> + { 0x1947, 0x0000, 0x00000103 },
>> +};
>
> This is nearly impossible to handle.
> Please add defines for 0x1, 0x103 and 0x303. Also please consider
> adding comments for the devices.
>
Ack, Initially added the comments for devices, but since only driver is
handling this data, and clients won't refer this so removed it. Will
consider adding it back. This actlr field value might different (other
than 0x1,0x103,0x303) in other platforms as per my anticipation,
depending on the bit settings, so won't the defines change with
different platforms? Hence this register setting value might be apt?
>> +
>> static struct qcom_smmu *to_qcom_smmu(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>> {
>> return container_of(smmu, struct qcom_smmu, smmu);
>> @@ -444,6 +502,16 @@ static const struct arm_smmu_impl sdm845_smmu_500_impl = {
>> .tlb_sync = qcom_smmu_tlb_sync,
>> };
>>
>> +
>> +static const struct arm_smmu_impl sm8550_smmu_500_impl = {
>> + .init_context = qcom_smmu_init_context,
>> + .cfg_probe = qcom_smmu_cfg_probe,
>> + .def_domain_type = qcom_smmu_def_domain_type,
>> + .reset = arm_mmu500_reset,
>> + .write_s2cr = qcom_smmu_write_s2cr,
>> + .tlb_sync = qcom_smmu_tlb_sync,
>> +};
>> +
>> static const struct arm_smmu_impl qcom_adreno_smmu_v2_impl = {
>> .init_context = qcom_adreno_smmu_init_context,
>> .def_domain_type = qcom_smmu_def_domain_type,
>> @@ -507,6 +575,11 @@ static const struct qcom_smmu_config qcom_smmu_impl0_cfg = {
>> .reg_offset = qcom_smmu_impl0_reg_offset,
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct actlr_config sm8550_actlrcfg = {
>> + .adata = sm8550_apps_actlr_data,
>> + .size = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8550_apps_actlr_data),
>> +};
>> +
>> /*
>> * It is not yet possible to use MDP SMMU with the bypass quirk on the msm8996,
>> * there are not enough context banks.
>> @@ -530,16 +603,20 @@ static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data sdm845_smmu_500_data = {
>> /* Also no debug configuration. */
>> };
>>
>> +
>> +static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data sm8550_smmu_500_impl0_data = {
>> + .impl = &sm8550_smmu_500_impl,
>> + .adreno_impl = &qcom_adreno_smmu_500_impl,
>> + .cfg = &qcom_smmu_impl0_cfg,
>> + .actlrcfg = &sm8550_actlrcfg,
>> +};
>
> This structure doesn't seem to be linked. Did you test your patches?
>
Apologies Dmitry, just checked back my patches, I tested it but while
refining the patches I somehow missed this link
{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-smmu-500", .data =
&sm8550_smmu_500_impl0_data };
in below qcom_smmu_500_impl0_data structure.
I will take care of this in next version.
>> +
>> static const struct qcom_smmu_match_data qcom_smmu_500_impl0_data = {
>> .impl = &qcom_smmu_500_impl,
>> .adreno_impl = &qcom_adreno_smmu_500_impl,
>> .cfg = &qcom_smmu_impl0_cfg,
>> };
>>
>> -/*
>> - * Do not add any more qcom,SOC-smmu-500 entries to this list, unless they need
>> - * special handling and can not be covered by the qcom,smmu-500 entry.
>> - */
>
> Leave the comment in place.
>
Thanks for this comment which helped me to note the above mentioned
mistake.
>> static const struct of_device_id __maybe_unused qcom_smmu_impl_of_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-smmu-v2", .data = &msm8996_smmu_data },
>> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8998-smmu-v2", .data = &qcom_smmu_v2_data },
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists