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;
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
CC:     "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "viresh.kumar@linaro.org" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport
Thread-Index: AQHV8QFMuMBBDfh8hE244PoeMX235qg4QIWAgAAijkCAAAqsUA==
Date:   Wed, 4 Mar 2020 14:16:00 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB44814B71E92C02956F4BED4588E50@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1583201219-15839-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <1583201219-15839-3-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20200304103954.GA25004@bogus>
 <AM0PR04MB4481A6DB7339C22A848DAFC988E50@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB4481A6DB7339C22A848DAFC988E50@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a1de24b3-9306-445a-2b10-08d7c04690ed
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Mar 2020 14:16:00.7000
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: leVOVCv+K0T4y1pOlC+Q8CfbSc3EORCsE1ehaqkFLf/YeeyYsDG+gEniwHB3KDDE5r7Hq/bn40zy/O04zCZLdQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR04MB7075
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport
>=20
> Hi Sudeep,
>=20
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: add smc/hvc transport
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 10:06:59AM +0800, peng.fan@nxp.com wrote:
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > Take arm,smc-id as the 1st arg, leave the other args as zero for now.
> > > There is no Rx, only Tx because of smc/hvc not support Rx.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +static int smc_send_message(struct scmi_chan_info *cinfo,
> > > +			    struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct scmi_smc *scmi_info =3D cinfo->transport_info;
> > > +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > +
> > > +	shmem_tx_prepare(scmi_info->shmem, xfer);
> >
> > How do we protect another thread/process on another CPU going and
> > modifying the same shmem with another request ? We may need notion of
> > channel with associated shmem and it is protected with some lock.
>=20
> This is valid concern. But I think if shmem is shared bwteen protocols, t=
he
> access to shmem should be protected in
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c: scmi_do_xfer, because send_message
> and fetch_response both touches shmem
>=20
> The mailbox transport also has the issue you mentioned, I think.

Ignore my upper comments. How do think the following diff based on current =
patch?

If ok, I'll squash it with current patch and send out v5.

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/sm=
c.c
index 88f91b68f297..7d770112f339 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/smc.c
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ struct scmi_smc {
        u32 func_id;
 };

+static DEFINE_MUTEX(smc_mutex);
+
 static bool smc_chan_available(struct device *dev, int idx)
 {
        return true;
@@ -99,11 +101,15 @@ static int smc_send_message(struct scmi_chan_info *cin=
fo,
        struct scmi_smc *scmi_info =3D cinfo->transport_info;
        struct arm_smccc_res res;

+       mutex_lock(&smc_mutex);
+
        shmem_tx_prepare(scmi_info->shmem, xfer);

        arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(scmi_info->func_id, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res)=
;
        scmi_rx_callback(scmi_info->cinfo, shmem_read_header(scmi_info->shm=
em));

+       mutex_unlock(&smc_mutex);
+
        return res.a0;
 }

Thanks,
Peng.

>=20
> Thanks,
> Peng.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Sudeep