| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID:
<SYBP282MB22386A7684FB826F157C67E5C4A82@SYBP282MB2238.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 01:02:04 +0800
From: Yuntao Dai <d1581209858@...e.com>
To: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"jassisinghbrar@...il.com" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>, "robh@...nel.org"
<robh@...nel.org>, "krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
"conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "unicorn_wang@...look.com"
<unicorn_wang@...look.com>, "inochiama@...look.com" <inochiama@...look.com>,
"paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, "palmer@...belt.com"
<palmer@...belt.com>, "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mailbox: sophgo: add mailbox driver for cv18x SoCs
> From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 09:35
> To: Yuntao Dai <d1581209858@...e.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>;
> devicetree@...r.kernel.org <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>;
> linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>;
> jassisinghbrar@...il.com <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>; robh@...nel.org
> <robh@...nel.org>; krzk+dt@...nel.org <krzk+dt@...nel.org>;
> conor+dt@...nel.org <conor+dt@...nel.org>; unicorn_wang@...look.com
> <unicorn_wang@...look.com>; inochiama@...look.com
> <inochiama@...look.com>; paul.walmsley@...ive.com
> <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>; palmer@...belt.com <palmer@...belt.com>;
> aou@...s.berkeley.edu <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mailbox: sophgo: add mailbox driver for
> cv18x SoCs
>
> On 2024-07-14 11:36 AM, Yuntao Dai wrote:
> > Add mailbox controller driver for cv18x SoCs, tested on
> mailbox-test
> > client.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Dai <d1581209858@...e.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 11 ++
> > drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
> > drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c | 203
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 216 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> > index 3b8842c4a..db856ec7e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> > @@ -286,4 +286,15 @@ config QCOM_IPCC
> > acts as an interrupt controller for receiving interrupts
> from clients.
> > Say Y here if you want to build this driver.
> >
> > +config CV1800_MBOX
> > + tristate "cv1800 mailbox"
> > + depends on OF
>
> This dependency is not necessary once the probe function is fixed
> (see below).
>
I will fix it.
> > + depends on ARCH_SOPHGO || COMPILE_TEST
> > + help
> > + Mailbox driver implementation for Sophgo cv180x SoCs. This
> driver
> > + can be used to send message between different processors
> in SoC. Any
> > + processer can write data in a channel, and set
> co-responding register
> > + to raise interrupt to notice another processor, and it is
> allowed to
> > + send data to itself.
> > +
> > endif
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> > index 5cf2f54de..2c6db8c5c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> > @@ -62,3 +62,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SUN6I_MSGBOX) += sun6i-msgbox.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_SPRD_MBOX) += sprd-mailbox.o
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IPCC) += qcom-ipcc.o
> > +
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_CV1800_MBOX) += cv1800-mailbox.o
> > \ No newline at end of file
>
> Please add the missing newline.
>
>
I will fix it
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
> b/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000..a3b214b4d
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
> > +
> > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/kfifo.h>
> > +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> > +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +
> > +#define RECV_CPU 2
> > +
> > +#define MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN 0x0008
> > +#define MAILBOX_DONE_OFFSET 0x0002
> > +#define MAILBOX_CONTEXT_SIZE 0x0040
> > +#define MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET 0x0400
> > +
> > +#define MBOX_EN_REG(cpu) (cpu << 2)
> > +#define MBOX_DONE_REG(cpu) ((cpu << 2) + MAILBOX_DONE_OFFSET)
> > +
> > +#define MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(cpu) (0x10 + (cpu << 4))
> > +#define MBOX_SET_INT_REG(cpu) (0x18 + (cpu << 4))
> > +
> > +#define MBOX_SET_REG 0x60
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * cv1800 mailbox channel private data
> > + * @idx: index of channel
> > + * @cpu: send to which processor
> > + */
> > +struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv {
> > + int idx;
> > + int cpu;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct cv1800_mbox {
> > + struct mbox_controller mbox;
> > + struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv priv[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
> > + struct mbox_chan chans[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
> > + u64 __iomem *content[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
> > + void __iomem *mbox_base;
> > + int recvid;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t cv1800_mbox_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > +{
> > + struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = (struct cv1800_mbox *)dev_id;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; i++) {
> > + if (mbox->content[i] && mbox->chans[i].cl) {
> > + mbox_chan_received_data(&mbox->chans[i],
> > + mbox->content[i]);
> > + mbox->content[i] = NULL;
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>
> Are you sure you only want to handle one channel per interrupt?
> Should this be
> "ret = IRQ_HANDLED;" or similar instead of early return? The same
> applies to
> cv1800_mbox_irq().
>
>
I believe this approach can simplify the implementation. I utilize
IRQ_ONESHOT to
prevent interrupt racing, thereby avoiding the need for locking
mbox->content in
this scenario. And I see rockchip mailbox did the same thing.
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t cv1800_mbox_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > +{
> > + struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = (struct cv1800_mbox *)dev_id;
> > + u64 __iomem *addr;
> > + u8 set, valid;
> > + size_t i;
> > +
> > + set = readb(mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_INT_REG(RECV_CPU));
> > +
> > + if (!set)
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; i++) {
> > + valid = set & (1 << i);
> > + addr = (u64 *)(mbox->mbox_base +
> MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET) + i;
> > + if (valid) {
> > + mbox->content[i] = addr;
> > + writeb(valid,
> > + mbox->mbox_base +
> MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(RECV_CPU));
> > + writeb(~valid, mbox->mbox_base +
> MBOX_EN_REG(RECV_CPU));
> > + return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int cv1800_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void
> *data)
> > +{
> > + struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *priv =
> > + (struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *)chan->con_priv;
> > + struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
> > + u64 __iomem *addr;
> > + u8 en, valid;
> > +
> > + int idx = priv->idx;
> > + int cpu = priv->cpu;
> > +
> > + addr = (u64 *)(mbox->mbox_base + MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET) +
> idx;
> > + memcpy_toio(addr, data, 8);
> > +
> > + valid = 1 << idx;
> > + writeb(valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(cpu));
> > + en = readb(mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_EN_REG(cpu));
> > + writeb(en | valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_EN_REG(cpu));
> > + writeb(valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_REG);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool cv1800_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > +{
> > + return true;
>
> Shouldn't this check MBOX_EN_REG(priv->cpu) or similar to check that
> the
> receiver has read the message?
>
Yes, I think check MBOX_EN_REG(priv->cpu) is a good way to ensure
content
has been writen into hardware. And I think driver should only send the
message and upper layer is responsible for ack and things like that.
There is a vendor implementation of linux mailbox and RTOS mailbox:
https://github.com/milkv-duo/duo-buildroot-sdk/blob/develop/linux_5.10/drivers/soc/cvitek/rtos_cmdqu/rtos_cmdqu.c
https://github.com/milkv-duo/duo-buildroot-sdk/blob/develop/freertos/cvitek/task/comm/src/riscv64/comm_main.c
These implementations define a protocol structure for communication
between
linux and RTOS, the linux mailbox controller just need to provide API
for
client and do not consider the content of msg.
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct mbox_chan_ops cv1800_mbox_chan_ops = {
> > + .send_data = cv1800_mbox_send_data,
> > + .last_tx_done = cv1800_last_tx_done,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct mbox_chan *cv1800_mbox_xlate(struct mbox_controller
> *mbox,
> > + const struct
> of_phandle_args *spec)
> > +{
> > + struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *priv;
> > +
> > + int idx = spec->args[0];
> > + int cpu = spec->args[1];
> > +
> > + if (idx >= mbox->num_chans)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > +
> > + priv = mbox->chans[idx].con_priv;
> > + priv->cpu = cpu;
> > +
> > + return &mbox->chans[idx];
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id cv1800_mbox_of_match[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800-mailbox", },
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, cv1800_mbox_of_match);
> > +
> > +static int cv1800_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct cv1800_mbox *mb;
> > + int irq, idx, err;
> > +
> > + if (!dev->of_node)
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> No need for this check.
I will fix it
>
> > +
> > + mb = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mb), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!mb)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + mb->mbox_base = devm_of_iomap(dev, dev->of_node, 0, NULL);
>
> Please use devm_platform_ioremap_resource() here, which abstracts
> away the OF node.
I will fix it
>
> > + if (IS_ERR(mb->mbox_base))
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(mb->mbox_base),
> > + "Failed to map resource\n");
> > +
> > + mb->mbox.dev = dev;
> > + mb->mbox.chans = mb->chans;
> > + mb->mbox.txdone_poll = true;
> > + mb->mbox.ops = &cv1800_mbox_chan_ops;
> > + mb->mbox.num_chans = MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN;
> > + mb->mbox.of_xlate = cv1800_mbox_xlate;
> > +
> > + irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "mailbox");
> > + err = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, irq, cv1800_mbox_irq,
> > + cv1800_mbox_isr,
> IRQF_ONESHOT,
> > + dev_name(&pdev->dev), mb);
> > + if (err < 0)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, err, "Failed to register
> irq\n");
> > +
> > + for (idx = 0; idx < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; idx++) {
> > + mb->priv[idx].idx = idx;
> > + mb->mbox.chans[idx].con_priv = &mb->priv[idx];
> > + }
> > +
> > + err = devm_mbox_controller_register(dev, &mb->mbox);
> > + if (err)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, err, "Failed to register
> mailbox\n");
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mb);
>
> cv1800_mbox_send_data() could be called even inside
> devm_mbox_controller_register(), so this needs to be moved up.
I will fix it
>
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver cv1800_mbox_driver = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "cv1800-mbox",
> > + .of_match_table = cv1800_mbox_of_match,
> > + },
> > + .probe = cv1800_mbox_probe,
> > +};
> > +
> > +module_platform_driver(cv1800_mbox_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("cv1800 mailbox driver");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists