Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758894AbZLPBXX (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:23:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932279AbZLPBXV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:23:21 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:37032 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756534AbZLPBXT (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:23:19 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,402,1257148800"; d="scan'208";a="476488161" Subject: Re: [PATH 1/5 -v2] acpi, IO memory pre-mapping and atomic accessing From: Huang Ying To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: "lenb@kernel.org" , ACPI Devel Maling List , Andi Kleen , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <200912151047.14196.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <1260429413.15264.393.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com> <200912111036.15063.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <1260839053.12561.1098.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com> <200912151047.14196.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:23:15 +0800 Message-ID: <1260926595.12561.1188.camel@yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5307 Lines: 126 On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:47 +0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Monday 14 December 2009 06:04:13 pm Huang Ying wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 01:36 +0800, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I think your code would be simpler if acpi_pre_map_gar() returned a > > > struct acpi_iomap pointer (from the caller's point of view, this would > > > be an opaque cookie). Then you could just supply that cookie to > > > acpi_atomic_write(), and you wouldn't have to look it up again. Maybe > > > you could even get rid of the list and all the fancy RCU & kref stuff > > > then, too. > > > > The interface chosen is based on usage model, which is: > > > > 1. In init function, all GARs needed are pre-mapped > > 2. In atomic context, pre-mapped GARs are accessed > > 3. In exit function, all GARs are post-unmapped > > > > In 3), if struct acpi_iomap* is used as parameter for post-unmap > > function, we need to record that pointer in another list. In 2), we need > > find mapped address from GAR. > > I understand that my proposal would require a slight change in your > usage model. I am suggesting that you make it follow the same pattern > as pci_iomap(), e.g.: > > void *pci_iomap(struct pci_dev *, int bar, unsigned long len); > unsigned int ioread32(void *); > void pci_iounmap(struct pci_dev *, void *); > > void *acpi_map_generic_address(struct acpi_generic_address *); > u64 acpi_read_atomic(void *); > void acpi_unmap_generic_address(void *); > > acpi_map_generic_address() would validate the GAR and do the ioremap(). > If the validation or ioremap() failed, it would return a NULL pointer. > > This would require the caller of acpi_map_generic_address() to hang onto > the pointer returned (just as callers of pci_iomap() must hang onto the > pointer it returns). > > The pointer would be supplied to acpi_read_atomic(), so it would not > need to do acpi_check_gar() because we know it was done successfully > in acpi_map_generic_address(). It wouldn't need to look up the GAR > in the list because the list entry was passed in. Since all the > possible failure conditions were checked in acpi_map_generic_address(), > acpi_read_atomic() doesn't need to return status and could simply > return the u64 directly. The usage model is different. Please take a look at __apei_exec_read_register(). We need to get virtual address from physical address in GAR. And many small-size GARs in ERST or EINJ may share same page, so some kind of virtual space optimization is necessary. > > > > +/* In NMI handler, should set silent = 1 */ > > > > +static int acpi_check_gar(struct acpi_generic_address *reg, > > > > + u64 *paddr, int silent) > > > > +{ > > > > + u32 width; > > > > + > > > > + /* Handle possible alignment issues */ > > > > + memcpy(paddr, ®->address, sizeof(*paddr)); > > > > + if (!*paddr) { > > > > + if (!silent) > > > > + pr_info( > > > > + "Invalid physical address in GAR, firmware bug?\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + width = reg->bit_width; > > > > + if ((width != 8) && (width != 16) && (width != 32) && (width != 64)) { > > > > + if (!silent) > > > > + pr_info( > > > > + "Invalid bit width in GAR, firmware bug?\n"); > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + if (reg->space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY && > > > > + reg->space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) { > > > > + if (!silent) > > > > + pr_info( > > > > + "Invalid address space type in GAR, firmware bug?\n"); > > > > > > Error messages with constant text are nearly useless because they > > > don't give much of a clue about where to look for a problem. > > > Personally, for something this, I would just return failure and > > > never print anything. If a map fails, the caller should notice > > > and you then have a good idea of where to look. > > > > The checking here is for bug in firmware not software. I think it is > > necessary for the user to know where the bugs may come from, and it is > > hard to express the bug in return code. > > Yes, I understand that this is checking for firmware bugs. My point > is that when a user sees this in his dmesg log: > > Invalid bit width in GAR, firmware bug? > > we have no context, and even a kernel developer can't figure out what > to do. We could ask for a copy of the FADT and DSDT, but even then, > we don't know *which* GAR structure to look at, so we'll probably have > to add some instrumentation and ask the user to reproduce the problem. > > If the check were in the caller, it could at least say something like: > > ACPI: couldn't map generic address [io 0xcf8] for PCI config access > > which would give us more useful information. En... Yes, some information about the invalid GAR is helpful. But the GAR information is available in acpi_check_gar too, so we can output something as follow in acpi_check_gar: Invalid bit width in GAR [mem 0x8029ff8 24], firmware bug? Your message looks like a software issue instead of firmware bug. This may confuse the user and developer. Best Regards, Huang Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/