netdev - Re: [RFC 4/7] mfd: ocelot-spi: Change the regmap stride to reflect the real one

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:56:05 -0700
From:   Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To:     Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        rafael@...nel.org, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/7] mfd: ocelot-spi: Change the regmap stride to reflect
 the real one

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 08:48:18AM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 01:48:17PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > Hello Andrew,
> > 
> > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:11:07 +0100
> > Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > > >  	.reg_bits = 24,
> > > > -	.reg_stride = 4,
> > > > +	.reg_stride = 1,
> > > >  	.reg_shift = REGMAP_DOWNSHIFT(2),
> > > >  	.val_bits = 32,  
> > > 
> > > This does not look like a bisectable change? Or did it never work
> > > before?
> > 
> > Actually this works in all cases because of "regmap: check for alignment
> > on translated register addresses" in this series. Before this series,
> > I think using a stride of 1 would have worked too, as any 4-byte-aligned
> > accesses are also 1-byte aligned.
> > 
> > But that's also why I need review on this, my understanding is that
> > reg_stride is used just as a check for alignment, and I couldn't test
> > this ocelot-related patch on the real HW, so please take it with a
> > grain of salt :(
> 
> You're exactly right. reg_stride wasn't used anywhere in the
> ocelot-spi path before this patch series. When I build against patch 3
> ("regmap: allow upshifting register addresses before performing
> operations") ocelot-spi breaks.
> 
> [    3.207711] ocelot-soc spi0.0: error -EINVAL: Error initializing SPI bus
> 
> When I build against the whole series, or even just up to patch 4 ("mfd:
> ocelot-spi: Change the regmap stride to reflect the real one")
> functionality returns.
> 
> If you keep patch 4 and apply it before patch 2, everything should
> work.

I replied too soon, before looking more into patch 2.

Some context from that patch:

--- a/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
+++ b/drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c
@@ -2016,7 +2016,7 @@ int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
 {
        int ret;

-       if (!IS_ALIGNED(reg, map->reg_stride))
+       if (!IS_ALIGNED(regmap_reg_addr(map, reg), map->reg_stride))
                return -EINVAL;

        map->lock(map->lock_arg);


I don't know whether checking IS_ALIGNED before or after the shift is
the right thing to do. My initial intention was to perform the shift at
the last possible moment before calling into the read / write routines.
That way it wouldn't interfere with any underlying regcache mechanisms
(which aren't used by ocelot-spi)

But to me it seems like patch 2 changes this expected behavior, so the
two patches should be squashed.


... Thinking more about it ...


In ocelot-spi, at the driver layer, we're accessing two registers.
They'd be at address 0x71070000 and 0x71070004. The driver uses those
addresses, so there's a stride of 4. I can't access 0x71070001.

The fact that the translation from "address" to "bits that go out the
SPI bus" shifts out the last two bits and hacks off a couple of the MSBs
doesn't seem like it should affect the 'reg_stride'.


So maybe patches 2 and 4 should be dropped, and your patch 6
alterra_tse_main should use a reg_stride of 1? That has a subtle benefit
of not needing an additional operation or two from regmap_reg_addr().

Would that cause any issues? Hopefully there isn't something I'm
missing.


(Aside: I'm now curious how the compiler will optimize
regmap_reg_addr())


Colin