| 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:
<PN1P287MB28185C9DA26A773775BDC4C6FE5A2@PN1P287MB2818.INDP287.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:43:17 +0800
From: Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Chen Wang <unicornxw@...il.com>,
u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, arnd@...db.de,
conor+dt@...nel.org, guoren@...nel.org, inochiama@...look.com,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
robh@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, chao.wei@...hgo.com,
xiaoguang.xing@...hgo.com, fengchun.li@...hgo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] irqchip: Add the Sophgo SG2042 MSI interrupt
controller
On 2024/11/13 14:14, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11 2024 at 12:01, Chen Wang wrote:
>> +struct sg2042_msi_data {
>> + void __iomem *reg_clr; /* clear reg, see TRM, 10.1.33, GP_INTR0_CLR */
> Please make these tail comments tabular aligned so they actually stand
> out.
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#comment-style
Got, will fix this.
>> +
>> + u64 doorbell_addr; /* see TRM, 10.1.32, GP_INTR0_SET */
>> +
>> + u32 irq_first; /* The vector number that MSIs starts */
>> + u32 num_irqs; /* The number of vectors for MSIs */
>> +
>> + unsigned long *msi_map;
>> + struct mutex msi_map_lock; /* lock for msi_map */
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int sg2042_msi_allocate_hwirq(struct sg2042_msi_data *priv, int num_req)
>> +{
>> + int first;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&priv->msi_map_lock);
> Please use
>
> guard(mutex)(&priv->msi_map_lock);
>
> which removes all the mutex_unlock() hackery and boils this down
Thanks, will double check.
>
>> +
>> + first = bitmap_find_free_region(priv->msi_map, priv->num_irqs,
>> + get_count_order(num_req));
>> + if (first < 0) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&priv->msi_map_lock);
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> + }
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&priv->msi_map_lock);
>> +
>> + return priv->irq_first + first;
> to
>
> guard(mutex)(&priv->msi_map_lock);
> first = bitmap_find_free_region(priv->msi_map, priv->num_irqs,
> get_count_order(num_req));
> return first >= 0 ? priv->irq_first + first : -ENOSPC;
>
> See?
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void sg2042_msi_free_hwirq(struct sg2042_msi_data *priv,
>> + int hwirq, int num_req)
>> +{
>> + int first = hwirq - priv->irq_first;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&priv->msi_map_lock);
> Ditto.
>
>> + bitmap_release_region(priv->msi_map, first, get_count_order(num_req));
>> + mutex_unlock(&priv->msi_map_lock);
>> +}
>> +static void sg2042_msi_irq_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *data,
>> + struct msi_msg *msg)
>> +{
>> + struct sg2042_msi_data *priv = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> +
>> + msg->address_hi = upper_32_bits(priv->doorbell_addr);
>> + msg->address_lo = lower_32_bits(priv->doorbell_addr);
>> + msg->data = 1 << (data->hwirq - priv->irq_first);
>> +
>> + pr_debug("%s hwirq[%d]: address_hi[%#x], address_lo[%#x], data[%#x]\n",
>> + __func__,
> No point in having this line break. You have 100 characters. Please fix
> this all over the place.
Got.
>
>> + (int)data->hwirq, msg->address_hi, msg->address_lo, msg->data);
> (int) ? Why can't you use the proper conversion specifier instead of %d?
Will double-check.
>
>> +static int sg2042_msi_middle_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
>> + unsigned int virq,
>> + unsigned int nr_irqs, void *args)
>> +{
>> + struct sg2042_msi_data *priv = domain->host_data;
>> + int hwirq, err, i;
>> +
>> + hwirq = sg2042_msi_allocate_hwirq(priv, nr_irqs);
>> + if (hwirq < 0)
>> + return hwirq;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
>> + err = sg2042_msi_parent_domain_alloc(domain, virq + i, hwirq + i);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto err_hwirq;
>> +
>> + pr_debug("%s: virq[%d], hwirq[%d]\n",
>> + __func__, virq + i, (int)hwirq + i);
> No line break required.
>
>> + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i, hwirq + i,
>> + &sg2042_msi_middle_irq_chip, priv);
>> + }
>> +static int sg2042_msi_init_domains(struct sg2042_msi_data *priv,
>> + struct device_node *node)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_domain *plic_domain, *middle_domain;
>> + struct device_node *plic_node;
>> + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(node);
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#variable-declarations
Thanks, will double-check.
>> + if (!of_find_property(node, "interrupt-parent", NULL)) {
>> + pr_err("Can't find interrupt-parent!\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + plic_node = of_irq_find_parent(node);
>> + if (!plic_node) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to find the PLIC node!\n");
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>> +
>> + plic_domain = irq_find_host(plic_node);
>> + of_node_put(plic_node);
>> + if (!plic_domain) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to find the PLIC domain\n");
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>> +
>> + middle_domain = irq_domain_create_hierarchy(plic_domain, 0, priv->num_irqs,
>> + fwnode,
>> + &pch_msi_middle_domain_ops,
>> + priv);
> So now you have created a domain. How is that supposed to be used by the
> PCI layer?
Here I create the domain and attached it to the fwnode. In PCI driver,
it can set this msi controller as its ""interrupt-parent" and find the
domain attached as below:
static int pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
parent_node = of_irq_find_parent(dev->of_node);
parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent_node);
...
}
>> + if (!middle_domain) {
>> + pr_err("Failed to create the MSI middle domain\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +static int sg2042_msi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
> ....
>
>> + data->msi_map = bitmap_zalloc(data->num_irqs, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!data->msi_map)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + return sg2042_msi_init_domains(data, pdev->dev.of_node);
> In case of error this leaks data->msi_map, no?
Thanks, I will correct this.
>> +static struct platform_driver sg2042_msi_driver = {
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "sg2042-msi",
>> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(sg2042_msi_of_match),
>> + },
>> + .probe = sg2042_msi_probe,
>> +};
> Please see the documentation I pointed you to above and search for
> struct initializers.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists