netdev - Re: [V5 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse

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: <555FDA14.9050404@amd.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 20:38:28 -0500
From:	Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:	<lenb@...nel.org>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	<will.deacon@....com>, <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
	<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<arnd@...db.de>, <msalter@...hat.com>, <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	<al.stone@...aro.org>, <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	<leo.duran@....com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [V5 PATCH 1/5] ACPI / scan: Parse _CCA and setup device coherency

On 5/22/2015 8:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2015 07:15:17 PM Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>> On 5/22/2015 6:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 22, 2015 05:24:15 PM Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>>>> Not sure if this went out earlier. So I am resending.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/15 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/glue.c b/drivers/acpi/glue.c
>>>>>>> index 39c485b..b9657af 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/glue.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/glue.c
>>>>>>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>>>>>>    #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>>    #include <linux/rwsem.h>
>>>>>>>    #include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>>>> +#include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    #include "internal.h"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ int acpi_bind_one(struct device *dev, struct acpi_device *acpi_dev)
>>>>>>>    	struct list_head *physnode_list;
>>>>>>>    	unsigned int node_id;
>>>>>>>    	int retval = -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> +	bool coherent;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    	if (has_acpi_companion(dev)) {
>>>>>>>    		if (acpi_dev) {
>>>>>>> @@ -223,6 +225,9 @@ int acpi_bind_one(struct device *dev, struct acpi_device *acpi_dev)
>>>>>>>    	if (!has_acpi_companion(dev))
>>>>>>>    		ACPI_COMPANION_SET(dev, acpi_dev);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	if (acpi_check_dma(acpi_dev, &coherent))
>>>>>>> +		arch_setup_dma_ops(dev, 0, 0, NULL, coherent);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>> Well, so is this going to work for PCI too after all?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, as Bjorn suggested, PCI changes for setting DMA coherent from _CCA
>>>> (patch 3/6 in V4) will be submitted separately. We are working on
>>>> cleaning up and up-streaming the PCI ACPI support for ARM64.
>>>
>>> OK, but acpi_bind_one() is called for PCI devices too.  Won't that be a problem?
>>>
>>>
>>   >
>> In this case, we would be going through the following call path:
>>
>>     --> pci_device_add()
>>      |--> pci_dma_configure() ** 1 **
>>      |--> device_add()
>>        |--> platform_notify()
>>          |--> acpi_platform_notify()
>>           |--> acpi_bind_one() ** 2 **
>>
>> At (1), we would be calling arch_setup_dma_ops() with the PCI host
>> bridge _CCA information. So, it should have already taken care of
>> setting up device coherency here.
>>
>> At (2), if there is no acpi_dev for endpoint devices (which I believe
>> this is normally the case), it would return early and skip
>> arch_setup_dma_ops().
>
> That's not correct.  There may be ACPI companions for endpoint devices too.

Ok. Duly noted :)

>> At (2), if there is an acpi_dev, the coherent_dma flag should have
>> already been setup by the acpi_init_device_object during ACPI scan.
>
> That one sets the flag for the *ACPI* *companion* of the device, which
> I'm still thinking is pointless, isn't it?

When you say pointless, are you referring to the part where we are end 
up calling arch_setup_dma_coherent() twice in this case? I am not quite 
following your point.

>> However, I am not certain about this case since I don't have the DSDT
>> containing  PCI endpoint devices to test with.
>
> Every x86 PC has them (as far as I can say), but in that case there's no
> _CCA and they are all coherent.

Ok.

Thanks,
Suravee


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html