Marc, On 04/20/2016 07:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:33:17 +0200 > Eric Auger <eric.au...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Marc, >> On 04/20/2016 11:27 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 19/04/16 18:13, Eric Auger wrote: >>>> This patch implements the msi_doorbell_info callback in the >>>> gicv2m driver. >>>> >>>> The driver now is able to return its doorbell characteristics >>>> (base, size, prot). A single doorbell is exposed. >>>> >>>> This will allow the msi layer to iommu_map this doorbell when >>>> requested. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@linaro.org> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> v7: creation >>>> --- >>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c >>>> index 28f047c..54690b9 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v2m.c >>>> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ >>>> #include <linux/of_pci.h> >>>> #include <linux/slab.h> >>>> #include <linux/spinlock.h> >>>> +#include <linux/percpu.h> >>>> +#include <linux/iommu.h> >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * MSI_TYPER: >>>> @@ -64,6 +66,7 @@ struct v2m_data { >>>> u32 nr_spis; /* The number of SPIs for MSIs */ >>>> unsigned long *bm; /* MSI vector bitmap */ >>>> u32 flags; /* v2m flags for specific implementation */ >>>> + struct irq_chip_msi_doorbell_info doorbell_info; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static void gicv2m_mask_msi_irq(struct irq_data *d) >>>> @@ -105,6 +108,16 @@ static void gicv2m_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data >>>> *data, struct msi_msg *msg) >>>> msg->data -= v2m->spi_start; >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static const struct irq_chip_msi_doorbell_info * >>>> +gicv2m_msi_doorbell_info(struct irq_data *data) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct v2m_data *v2m = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data); >>>> + >>>> + if (!v2m) >>>> + return NULL; >>> >>> How can this ever be NULL? I think you can drop that test. >> OK >>> >>>> + return (const struct irq_chip_msi_doorbell_info *)(&v2m->doorbell_info); >>> >>> Please don't do that. Use "const" in the functions that are using >>> irq_chip_msi_doorbell_info, but do not make this "const" here. >> It definitively compiles without casting so obviously this is not needed >> but is there any other wrong thing I don't see? >> we still want this function to return a pointer to a const? > > I don't think we can return a const pointer, because it is obviously > not (the memory has been kmalloc'ed, and you've written to it, so it is > not really "read-only"). I see what you are afraid of now and I will remove it; will ask some compiler guys ;-)
Have a nice evening Eric > > Maybe I'm being overly zealous, but I've seen compilers taking amazing > shortcuts when offered a const qualifier... > >>> >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> static struct irq_chip gicv2m_irq_chip = { >>>> .name = "GICv2m", >>>> .irq_mask = irq_chip_mask_parent, >>>> @@ -112,6 +125,7 @@ static struct irq_chip gicv2m_irq_chip = { >>>> .irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent, >>>> .irq_set_affinity = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent, >>>> .irq_compose_msi_msg = gicv2m_compose_msi_msg, >>>> + .msi_doorbell_info = gicv2m_msi_doorbell_info, >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static int gicv2m_irq_gic_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, >>>> @@ -247,6 +261,7 @@ static void gicv2m_teardown(void) >>>> >>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(v2m, tmp, &v2m_nodes, entry) { >>>> list_del(&v2m->entry); >>>> + free_percpu(v2m->doorbell_info.percpu_doorbells); >>>> kfree(v2m->bm); >>>> iounmap(v2m->base); >>>> of_node_put(to_of_node(v2m->fwnode)); >>>> @@ -299,6 +314,7 @@ static int __init gicv2m_init_one(struct fwnode_handle >>>> *fwnode, >>>> { >>>> int ret; >>>> struct v2m_data *v2m; >>>> + struct irq_chip_msi_doorbell __percpu *doorbell; >>>> >>>> v2m = kzalloc(sizeof(struct v2m_data), GFP_KERNEL); >>>> if (!v2m) { >>>> @@ -311,11 +327,23 @@ static int __init gicv2m_init_one(struct >>>> fwnode_handle *fwnode, >>>> >>>> memcpy(&v2m->res, res, sizeof(struct resource)); >>>> >>>> + v2m->doorbell_info.percpu_doorbells = >>>> + alloc_percpu(struct irq_chip_msi_doorbell); >>>> + if (WARN_ON(!v2m->doorbell_info.percpu_doorbells)) { >>>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>>> + goto err_free_v2m; >>>> + } >>>> + doorbell = per_cpu_ptr(v2m->doorbell_info.percpu_doorbells, 0); >>>> + doorbell->base = v2m->res.start; >>>> + doorbell->size = 4; >>>> + doorbell->prot = IOMMU_WRITE; >>> >>> You probably need to also have something that says IOMMU_DEVICE or >>> something similar, because I'm afraid you're getting a memory mapping >>> here. I've had a quick look at the two other series, but couldn't find >>> anything that would force the memory attributes. >> Yes you're right I currently just enforce the direction (which is >> checked against what VFIO user registered). Do you refer to IOMMU_MMIO, >> latterly proposed on the ML. In the positive, yes I intend to add it >> once it gets upstreamed. > > Yeah, Robin's patches should become a dependency here, because there is > absolutely no guarantee that the device write to the doorbell won't be > treated a normal cacheable memory, with disastrous effects. > > Thanks, > > M. >