Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751195AbdFBSWq (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:22:46 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:35160 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750971AbdFBSWo (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 14:22:44 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 1BD23602BD Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sboyd@codeaurora.org Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:22:42 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi Cc: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, agross@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] firmware: scm: Add new SCM call API for switching memory ownership Message-ID: <20170602182242.GN20170@codeaurora.org> References: <1496344641-6291-1-git-send-email-akdwived@codeaurora.org> <1496344641-6291-2-git-send-email-akdwived@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1496344641-6291-2-git-send-email-akdwived@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4115 Lines: 149 On 06/02, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote: > Two different processors on a SOC need to switch memory ownership > during load/unload. To enable this, level second memory map table second level page tables instead of level second memory map table > need to be updated, which is done by secure layer. > This patch add the interface for making secure monitor call for s/add/adds/ > memory ownership switching request. > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c > index bb16510..9da3c6d 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm.c > @@ -292,6 +304,86 @@ int qcom_scm_pas_shutdown(u32 peripheral) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_pas_shutdown); > > +/** > + * qcom_scm_assign_mem() - Make a secure call to reassign memory ownership > + * > + * @mem_addr: mem region whose ownership need to be reassigned > + * @mem_sz: size of the region. > + * @srcvm: vmid for current set of owners, each set bit in > + * flag indicate a unique owner > + * @newvm: array having new owners and corrsponding permission > + * flags > + * @dest_cnt: number of owners in next set. > + * Return next set of owners on success. > + */ > +int qcom_scm_assign_mem(phys_addr_t mem_addr, size_t mem_sz, int srcvm, > + struct qcom_scm_vmperm *newvm, int dest_cnt) > +{ > + unsigned long dma_attrs = DMA_ATTR_FORCE_CONTIGUOUS; > + struct qcom_scm_current_perm_info *destvm; > + struct qcom_scm_mem_map_info *mem; > + phys_addr_t memory_phys; > + phys_addr_t dest_phys; > + phys_addr_t src_phys; > + size_t mem_all_sz; > + size_t memory_sz; > + size_t dest_sz; > + size_t src_sz; > + int next_vm; > + __le32 *src; > + void *ptr; > + int ret; > + int i; Yay reverse christmas tre. > + > + src_sz = hweight_long(srcvm)*sizeof(*src); Please add space around that '*': src_sz = hweight_long(srcvm) * sizeof(*src); > + memory_sz = sizeof(*mem); > + dest_sz = dest_cnt*sizeof(*destvm); > + mem_all_sz = src_sz + memory_sz + dest_sz; > + > + ptr = dma_alloc_attrs(__scm->dev, ALIGN(mem_all_sz, SZ_64), > + &src_phys, GFP_KERNEL, dma_attrs); > + if (!ptr) { > + pr_err("mem alloc failed\n"); We don't want memory allocation failure prints. Please remove. > + return -ENOMEM; > + } Newline here! > + /* Fill source vmid detail */ > + src = (__le32 *)(ptr); Drop useless parenthesis around ptr please. > + ret = hweight_long(srcvm); len = hweight_long(...)? > + for (i = 0; i < ret; i++) { i to ret is really weird looking! > + src[i] = cpu_to_le32(ffs(srcvm) - 1); > + srcvm ^= 1 << (ffs(srcvm) - 1); > + } What if the loop was written like: for_each_set_bit(i, &srcvm, sizeof(srcvm)) src[i] = cpu_to_le32(i); I guess srvcm would have to be a long then. > + > + /* Fill details of mem buff to map */ > + mem = (struct qcom_scm_mem_map_info *)(ptr + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64)); Useless cast from void *. > + memory_phys = src_phys + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64); > + mem[0].mem_addr = cpu_to_le64(mem_addr); > + mem[0].mem_size = cpu_to_le64(mem_sz); > + > + next_vm = 0; > + /* Fill details of next vmid detail */ > + destvm = (struct qcom_scm_current_perm_info *) > + (ptr + ALIGN(memory_sz, SZ_64) + ALIGN(src_sz, SZ_64)); Useless cast from void. > + dest_phys = memory_phys + ALIGN(memory_sz, SZ_64); > + for (i = 0; i < dest_cnt; i++) { > + destvm[i].vmid = cpu_to_le32(newvm[i].vmid); > + destvm[i].perm = cpu_to_le32(newvm[i].perm); > + destvm[i].ctx = 0; > + destvm[i].ctx_size = 0; > + next_vm |= BIT(newvm[i].vmid); > + } Newline please! > + ret = __qcom_scm_assign_mem(__scm->dev, memory_phys, > + memory_sz, src_phys, src_sz, dest_phys, dest_sz); > + dma_free_attrs(__scm->dev, ALIGN(mem_all_sz, SZ_64), > + ptr, src_phys, dma_attrs); > + if (ret == 0) > + return next_vm; > + else if (ret > 0) > + return -ret; When is ret > 0? > + return ret; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_assign_mem); > + > static int qcom_scm_pas_reset_assert(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev, > unsigned long idx) > { -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project