On 01.12.14 23:53, Stuart Yoder wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alexander Graf [mailto:ag...@suse.de] >> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 10:14 AM >> To: Rivera Jose-B46482; gre...@linuxfoundation.org; a...@arndb.de; >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Phillips Kim-R1AAHA; Wood Scott-B07421; Hamciuc >> Bogdan-BHAMCIU1; Marginean >> Alexandru-R89243; Thorpe Geoff-R01361; Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; Erez >> Nir-RM30794; Schmitt Richard-B43082 >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v4] drivers/bus: Added Freescale Management Complex >> APIs >> >> >> >> On 13.11.14 18:54, J. German Rivera wrote: >>> APIs to access the Management Complex (MC) hardware >>> module of Freescale LS2 SoCs. This patch includes >>> APIs to check the MC firmware version and to manipulate >>> DPRC objects in the MC. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: J. German Rivera <german.riv...@freescale.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Stuart Yoder <stuart.yo...@freescale.com> >> >> [...] >> >>> +/** >>> + * Creates an MC I/O object >>> + * >>> + * @dev: device to be associated with the MC I/O object >>> + * @mc_portal_phys_addr: physical address of the MC portal to use >>> + * @mc_portal_size: size in bytes of the MC portal >>> + * @flags: flags for the new MC I/O object >>> + * @new_mc_io: Area to return pointer to newly created MC I/O object >>> + * >>> + * Returns '0' on Success; Error code otherwise. >>> + */ >>> +int __must_check fsl_create_mc_io(struct device *dev, >>> + phys_addr_t mc_portal_phys_addr, >>> + uint32_t mc_portal_size, >>> + uint32_t flags, struct fsl_mc_io **new_mc_io) >>> +{ >>> + struct fsl_mc_io *mc_io; >>> + void __iomem *mc_portal_virt_addr; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + >>> + mc_io = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mc_io), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (mc_io == NULL) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + mc_io->dev = dev; >>> + mc_io->flags = flags; >>> + mc_io->portal_phys_addr = mc_portal_phys_addr; >>> + mc_io->portal_size = mc_portal_size; >>> + res = devm_request_mem_region(dev, >>> + mc_portal_phys_addr, >>> + mc_portal_size, >>> + "mc_portal"); >>> + if (res == NULL) { >>> + dev_err(dev, >>> + "devm_request_mem_region failed for MC portal %#llx\n", >>> + mc_portal_phys_addr); >>> + return -EBUSY; >>> + } >>> + >>> + mc_portal_virt_addr = devm_ioremap_nocache(dev, >>> + mc_portal_phys_addr, >>> + mc_portal_size); >> >> While I can't complain about the device itself, I will note that I think >> it's a pretty bad design decision to expose actual host physical >> addresses in the protocol. > > I tend to agree. I'll look into creating a proposed change to the > architecture > to have the MC communicate a physical offset of some kind. > >> Basically this means that you won't be able to pass a full MC complex >> into a guest, even if you could virtualize IRQ and DMA access unless you >> map it at the exact same location as the host's MC complex. > > Right. But is that really an issue in practice?
Well, it obviously depends on what you're trying to do. For everything that's envisioned today I don't think it's a problem, but I like to stick to the "know as little as you have to know" rule when it comes to communication protocols. >> Could we at least add a "ranges" property to the MC device description >> and check whether the physical addresses we get are within that range - >> if nothing else, at least as sanity check? Then maybe add some calls in >> the next version that act on that range rather than actual host physical >> addresses? > > So you mean something like: > > fsl_mc: fsl-mc@80c000000 { > compatible = "fsl,qoriq-mc"; > #stream-id-cells = <2>; > reg = <0x00000008 0x0c000000 0 0x40>, /* MC portal base */ > <0x00000000 0x08340000 0 0x40000>; /* MC control reg */ > ranges = <0x8 0x0 0x8 0x0 0x20000000>; > lpi-parent = <&its>; > }; > > The physical addresses returned by the MC fall into a 512MB "portal" > region at 0x8_0000_0000 in the physical address map. For now map it 1:1, but > in the > future it could become: > ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x8 0x0 0x20000000>; > > ...if I can get the hardware architecture changed. Yup, I think that makes things a lot less error prone - you don't randomly access any pointer the device tells you to access :). Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/