On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 02:40:19PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Fri Jul 5, 2024 at 11:41 AM AEST, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 11:18:47AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > On Thu Jul 4, 2024 at 10:15 PM AEST, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 04:17, David Gibson
> > > > <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 04:20:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 at 14:39, Akihiko Odaki
> > > > > > <akihiko.od...@daynix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FDT properties are aligned by 4 bytes, not 8 bytes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <akihiko.od...@daynix.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > hw/ppc/vof.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/vof.c b/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > index e3b430a81f4f..b5b6514d79fc 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/hw/ppc/vof.c
> > > > > > > @@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ static void vof_dt_memory_available(void
> > > > > > > *fdt, GArray *claimed, uint64_t base)
> > > > > > > mem0_reg = fdt_getprop(fdt, offset, "reg", &proplen);
> > > > > > > g_assert(mem0_reg && proplen == sizeof(uint32_t) * (ac +
> > > > > > > sc));
> > > > > > > if (sc == 2) {
> > > > > > > - mem0_end = be64_to_cpu(*(uint64_t *)(mem0_reg +
> > > > > > > sizeof(uint32_t) * ac));
> > > > > > > + mem0_end = ldq_be_p(mem0_reg + sizeof(uint32_t) * ac);
> > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > mem0_end = be32_to_cpu(*(uint32_t *)(mem0_reg +
> > > > > > > sizeof(uint32_t) * ac));
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did wonder if there was a better way to do what this is doing,
> > > > > > but neither we (in system/device_tree.c) nor libfdt seem to
> > > > > > provide one.
> > > > >
> > > > > libfdt does provide unaligned access helpers (fdt32_ld() etc.), but
> > > > > not an automatic aligned-or-unaligned helper. Maybe we should add
> > > > > that?
> > > >
> > > > fdt32_ld() and friends only do the "load from this bit of memory"
> > > > part, which we already have QEMU utility functions for (and which
> > > > are this patch uses).
> > > >
> > > > This particular bit of code is dealing with an fdt property ("memory")
> > > > that is an array of (address, size) tuples where address and size
> > > > can independently be either 32 or 64 bits, and it wants the
> > > > size value of tuple 0. So the missing functionality is something at
> > > > a higher level than fdt32_ld() which would let you say "give me
> > > > tuple N field X" with some way to specify the tuple layout. (Which
> > > > is an awkward kind of API to write in C.)
> > > >
> > > > Slightly less general, but for this case we could perhaps have
> > > > something like the getprop equivalent of qemu_fdt_setprop_sized_cells():
> > > >
> > > > uint64_t value_array[2];
> > > > qemu_fdt_getprop_sized_cells(fdt, nodename, "memory", &value_array,
> > > > ac, sc);
> > > > /*
> > > > * fills in value_array[0] with address, value_array[1] with size,
> > > > * probably barfs if the varargs-list of cell-sizes doesn't
> > > > * cover the whole property, similar to the current assert on
> > > > * proplen.
> > > > */
> > > > mem0_end = value_array[0];
> > >
> > > Since 4/8 byte cells are most common and size is probably
> > > normally known, what about something simpler to start with?
> >
> > Hrm, I don't think this helps much. As Peter points out the actual
> > load isn't really the issue, it's locating the right spot for it.
>
> I don't really see why that's a problem, it's just a pointer
> addition - base + fdt_address_cells * 4. The problem was in
This is harder if #address-cells and #size-cells are different, or if
you're parsing ranges and #address-cells is different between parent
and child node.
> the memory access (yes it's fixed with the patch but you could
> add a general libfdt way to do it).
Huh.. well I'm getting different impressions of what the problem
actually is from what I initially read versus Peter Maydell's
comments, so I don't really know what to think.
If it's just the load then fdt32_ld() etc. already exist. Or is it
really such a hot path that unconditionally handling unaligned
accesses isn't tenable?
> Some fancy function like above could be used, But is it really
> worth implementing such a thing for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
--
David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way
| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
