linux-kernel - Re: [v3] PCI: cadence: Fix sending message with data or without data

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: <3d3d8772-08ba-4e5a-bf1f-71821cf056e7@163.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 23:48:16 +0800
From: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
 lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 bwawrzyn@...co.com, cassel@...nel.org,
 wojciech.jasko-EXT@...tinental-corporation.com, a-verma1@...com,
 linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rockswang7@...il.com
Subject: Re: [v3] PCI: cadence: Fix sending message with data or without data



On 2025/2/14 23:31, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:28:11PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
>> Sorry Mani, I shouldn't have spread this SOC bug. This is a bug in RTL
>> design, the WSTRB signal of AXI bus is not connected correctly, so the first
>> generation SOC cannot send message, because we mainly use RC mode, and we
>> cannot send PME_Turn_OFF, that is, our SOC does not support L2. I have no
>> choice about this, I entered the company relatively late, and our SOC has
>> already TO.
> 
> Ok. Just to clear my head, this patch is needed irrespective of the hw issue,
> right? And with or without this patch, first revision hw cannot send any MSG
> TLPs?

Yes, that was a problem with our own SOC design, the Cadence RTL bug.	

> If so, it is fine. But is there a way we could detect those first generation IPs
> and flag it to users about broken MSG TLP support? Atleast, that would make the
> users aware of broken hw.

I don't know how to do it, but here are the questions that were actually 
tested.

>>
>> This patch is to solve the Cadence common code bug, and does not conform to
>> Cadence documentation.
> 
> you mean 'does'?
> 

What I mean is that common code bit16=1 is to send a message without 
data, while Cadence's development document says that bit16=0 is to send 
a message without data. This is not consistent with the documentation 
description, and the final verification results, the development 
documentation described is correct.

Best regards
Hans