| 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: <20250513104020.GC2003346@rocinante>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 19:40:20 +0900
From: Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>
To: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
Cc: shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, lpieralisi@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
heiko@...ech.de, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PCI: rockchip-host: Refactor IRQ handling with info
arrays
Hello,
Thank you for the patch and the proposed changes.
> Replace repetitive if-conditions for IRQ status checks with structured
> arrays (`pcie_subsys_irq_info` and `pcie_client_irq_info`) and loop-based
> logging. This simplifies maintenance and reduces code duplication.
[...]
> +static const struct rockchip_irq_info pcie_subsys_irq_info[] = {
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_PRFPE,
> + "parity error detected while reading from the PNP receive FIFO RAM" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_CRFPE,
> + "parity error detected while reading from the Completion Receive FIFO RAM" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_RRPE,
> + "parity error detected while reading from replay buffer RAM" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_PRFO, "overflow occurred in the PNP receive FIFO" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_CRFO,
> + "overflow occurred in the completion receive FIFO" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_RT, "replay timer timed out" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_RTR,
> + "replay timer rolled over after 4 transmissions of the same TLP" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_PE, "phy error detected on receive side" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_MTR, "malformed TLP received from the link" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_UCR, "Unexpected Completion received from the link" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_FCE,
> + "an error was observed in the flow control advertisements from the other side" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_CT, "a request timed out waiting for completion" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_UTC, "unmapped TC error" },
> + { PCIE_CORE_INT_MMVC, "MSI mask register changes" },
> +};
> +
> +static const struct rockchip_irq_info pcie_client_irq_info[] = {
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_LEGACY_DONE, "legacy done" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_MSG, "message done" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_HOT_RST, "hot reset" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_DPA, "dpa" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_FATAL_ERR, "fatal error" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_NFATAL_ERR, "Non fatal error" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_CORR_ERR, "correctable error" },
> + { PCIE_CLIENT_INT_PHY, "phy" },
> +};
> +
> static void rockchip_pcie_enable_bw_int(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
> {
> u32 status;
> @@ -411,47 +450,11 @@ static irqreturn_t rockchip_pcie_subsys_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_LOCAL) {
> dev_dbg(dev, "local interrupt received\n");
> sub_reg = rockchip_pcie_read(rockchip, PCIE_CORE_INT_STATUS);
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_PRFPE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "parity error detected while reading from the PNP receive FIFO RAM\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_CRFPE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "parity error detected while reading from the Completion Receive FIFO RAM\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_RRPE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "parity error detected while reading from replay buffer RAM\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_PRFO)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "overflow occurred in the PNP receive FIFO\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_CRFO)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "overflow occurred in the completion receive FIFO\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_RT)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "replay timer timed out\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_RTR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "replay timer rolled over after 4 transmissions of the same TLP\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_PE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "phy error detected on receive side\n");
>
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_MTR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "malformed TLP received from the link\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_UCR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "Unexpected Completion received from the link\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_FCE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "an error was observed in the flow control advertisements from the other side\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_CT)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "a request timed out waiting for completion\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_UTC)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "unmapped TC error\n");
> -
> - if (sub_reg & PCIE_CORE_INT_MMVC)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "MSI mask register changes\n");
> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pcie_subsys_irq_info); i++) {
> + if (sub_reg & pcie_subsys_irq_info[i].bit)
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", pcie_subsys_irq_info[i].msg);
> + }
>
> rockchip_pcie_write(rockchip, sub_reg, PCIE_CORE_INT_STATUS);
> } else if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_PHY) {
> @@ -473,29 +476,12 @@ static irqreturn_t rockchip_pcie_client_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> u32 reg;
>
> reg = rockchip_pcie_read(rockchip, PCIE_CLIENT_INT_STATUS);
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_LEGACY_DONE)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "legacy done interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_MSG)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "message done interrupt received\n");
>
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_HOT_RST)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "hot reset interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_DPA)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "dpa interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_FATAL_ERR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "fatal error interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_NFATAL_ERR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "non fatal error interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_CORR_ERR)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "correctable error interrupt received\n");
> -
> - if (reg & PCIE_CLIENT_INT_PHY)
> - dev_dbg(dev, "phy interrupt received\n");
> + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pcie_client_irq_info); i++) {
> + if (reg & pcie_client_irq_info[i].bit)
> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s interrupt received\n",
> + pcie_client_irq_info[i].msg);
Why do you think that this is better?
Other patches in this series seem sensible, but this one does not stands
out as something that needs to be changed.
Thank you!
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists