linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 25/29] cxl/amd: Enable Zen5 address translation using ACPI PRMT

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z36eR5oXcv3rpEZ-@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:48:23 -0500
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 25/29] cxl/amd: Enable Zen5 address translation using
 ACPI PRMT

On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 03:10:11PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> Add AMD platform specific Zen5 support for address translation.
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Once the endpoint is attached to a region and its SPA range is know,
> calling the PRM is no longer needed, the SPA base can be used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>

One inline question, but not a blocker

Reviewed-by: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>

> ---
>  drivers/cxl/Kconfig       |   4 +
>  drivers/cxl/core/Makefile |   1 +
>  drivers/cxl/core/amd.c    | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/cxl/core/core.h   |   6 +
>  drivers/cxl/core/port.c   |   7 ++
>  5 files changed, 245 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/cxl/core/amd.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> index 901555bf4b73..c8176265c15c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> @@ -831,6 +831,11 @@ static void cxl_debugfs_create_dport_dir(struct cxl_dport *dport)
>  			    &cxl_einj_inject_fops);
>  }
>  
> +static void cxl_port_platform_setup(struct cxl_port *port)
> +{
> +	cxl_port_setup_amd(port);
> +}
> +

Assuming this gets expanded (which it may not), should we expect this
function to end up like so?

static void cxl_port_platform_setup(struct cxl_port *port)
{
	cxl_port_setup_amd(port);
	cxl_port_setup_intel(port);
	cxl_port_setup_arm(port);
	... etc ...
}

I suppose this logic has to exist somewhere in some form, just want to make
sure this is what we want.  Either way, this is easily modifiable, so
not a blocker as I said.

>  static int cxl_port_add(struct cxl_port *port,
>  			resource_size_t component_reg_phys,
>  			struct cxl_dport *parent_dport)
> @@ -868,6 +873,8 @@ static int cxl_port_add(struct cxl_port *port,
>  			return rc;
>  	}
>  
> +	cxl_port_platform_setup(port);
> +
>  	rc = device_add(dev);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
> -- 
> 2.39.5
>