Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
References: <20190713060023.8479-1-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <20190713060023.8479-4-bauerman@linux.ibm.com> <70f8097f-7222-fe18-78b4-9372c21bfc9d@ozlabs.ru> <20190718195850.GU20882@gate.crashing.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.2
From:   Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.linux@gmail.com>,
        Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] powerpc/prom_init: Add the ESM call to prom_init
In-reply-to: <20190718195850.GU20882@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:28:36 -0300
Message-ID: <875znz3ud7.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Hello Segher,

Thanks for your review and suggestions!

Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes:

> (Sorry to hijack your reply).
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 06:11:48PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 13/07/2019 16:00, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>> >From: Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
>> >+static int enter_secure_mode(unsigned long kbase, unsigned long fdt)
>> >+{
>> >+	register uint64_t func asm("r3") = UV_ESM;
>> >+	register uint64_t arg1 asm("r4") = (uint64_t)kbase;
>> >+	register uint64_t arg2 asm("r5") = (uint64_t)fdt;
>> 
>> What does UV do with kbase and fdt precisely? Few words in the commit 
>> log will do.
>> 
>> >+
>> >+	asm volatile("sc 2\n"
>> >+		     : "=r"(func)
>> >+		     : "0"(func), "r"(arg1), "r"(arg2)
>> >+		     :);
>> >+
>> >+	return (int)func;
>> 
>> And why "func"? Is it "function"? Weird name. Thanks,

Yes, I believe func is for function. Perhaps ucall would be clearer
if the variable wasn't reused for the return value as Segher points out.

> Maybe the three vars should just be called "r3", "r4", and "r5" --
> r3 is used as return value as well, so "func" isn't a great name for it.

Yes, that does seem simpler.

> Some other comments about this inline asm:
>
> The "\n" makes the generated asm look funny and has no other function.
> Instead of using backreferences you can use a "+" constraint, "inout".
> Empty clobber list is strange.
> Casts to the return type, like most other casts, are an invitation to
> bugs and not actually useful.
>
> So this can be written
>
> static int enter_secure_mode(unsigned long kbase, unsigned long fdt)
> {
> 	register uint64_t r3 asm("r3") = UV_ESM;
> 	register uint64_t r4 asm("r4") = kbase;
> 	register uint64_t r4 asm("r5") = fdt;
>
> 	asm volatile("sc 2" : "+r"(r3) : "r"(r4), "r"(r5));
>
> 	return r3;
> }

I'll adopt your version, it is cleaner inded. Thanks for providing it!

> (and it probably should use u64 instead of both uint64_t and unsigned long?)

Almost all of prom_init.c uses unsigned long, with u64 in just a few
places. uint64_t isn't used anywhere else in the file. I'll switch to
unsigned long everywhere, since this feature is only for 64 bit.

-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center