| Message ID | 1532697292-14272-11-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | c874bf59add0e6ed1d5d8c1753b9b66d51e3f640 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | remoteproc: add fixed memory region support | expand |
Hi Loic, On 7/27/18 8:14 AM, Loic Pallardy wrote: > This patch introduces a function to verify that a specified carveout > is fitting request device address and associated length > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 1e0fe3e..5dd5edf 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -259,6 +259,53 @@ struct rproc_mem_entry * > return mem; > } > > +/** > + * rproc_check_carveout_da() - Check specified carveout da configuration > + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor > + * @mem: pointer on carveout to check > + * @da: area device address > + * @len: associated area size > + * > + * This function is a helper function to verify requested device area (couple > + * da, len) is part of specified carevout. %s/carevout/carveout/ > + * > + * Return: 0 if carveout matchs request else -ENOMEM %s/matchs/matches/ > + */ > +int rproc_check_carveout_da(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry *mem, static int since this seems to be only a local function. > + u32 da, u32 len) > +{ > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > + int delta = 0; > + > + /* Check requested resource length */ > + if (len > mem->len) { > + dev_err(dev, "Registered carveout doesn't fit len request\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; ENOMEM not typically used for these kind of errors, you were probably inclined to used this since it is dealing with memory. > + } > + Both the below codepaths are exercised only when da is not FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY, and you are returning 0 otherwise (which is the case of matches as per your description above). Is that what you really want - should it be an error > + if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da == FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { > + /* Update existing carveout da */ > + mem->da = da; Where would you need to update this? regards Suman > + } else if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { > + delta = da - mem->da; > + > + /* Check requested resource belongs to registered carveout */ > + if (delta < 0) { > + dev_err(dev, > + "Registered carveout doesn't fit da request\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > + if (delta + len > mem->len) { > + dev_err(dev, > + "Registered carveout doesn't fit len request\n"); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i) > { > struct rproc *rproc = rvdev->rproc; >
Hi Suman, > -----Original Message----- > From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> > Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2018 00:14 > To: Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@st.com>; bjorn.andersson@linaro.org; > ohad@wizery.com > Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>; > benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/17] remoteproc: add helper function to check > carveout device address > > Hi Loic, > > On 7/27/18 8:14 AM, Loic Pallardy wrote: > > This patch introduces a function to verify that a specified carveout > > is fitting request device address and associated length > > > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 47 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > index 1e0fe3e..5dd5edf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > @@ -259,6 +259,53 @@ struct rproc_mem_entry * > > return mem; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * rproc_check_carveout_da() - Check specified carveout da configuration > > + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor > > + * @mem: pointer on carveout to check > > + * @da: area device address > > + * @len: associated area size > > + * > > + * This function is a helper function to verify requested device area > (couple > > + * da, len) is part of specified carevout. > > %s/carevout/carveout/ OK > > > + * > > + * Return: 0 if carveout matchs request else -ENOMEM > > %s/matchs/matches/ OK > > > + */ > > +int rproc_check_carveout_da(struct rproc *rproc, struct > rproc_mem_entry *mem, > > static int since this seems to be only a local function. OK > > > + u32 da, u32 len) > > +{ > > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > > + int delta = 0; > > + > > + /* Check requested resource length */ > > + if (len > mem->len) { > > + dev_err(dev, "Registered carveout doesn't fit len > request\n"); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > ENOMEM not typically used for these kind of errors, you were probably > inclined to used this since it is dealing with memory. -EINVAL will be better > > > + } > > + > > Both the below codepaths are exercised only when da is not > FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY, and you are returning 0 otherwise (which is the case of > matches as per your description above). Is that what you really want - > should it be an error Yes when da is equal to FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY we should check the length too > > > + if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da == FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) > { > > + /* Update existing carveout da */ > > + mem->da = da; > > Where would you need to update this? In that case, we have 2 carveouts with the same name. One has some fixed requests. The other one has none. The goal here is to align both on the one which has the strongest requirements. I think length is missing. Regards, Loic > > regards > Suman > > > + } else if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da != > FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { > > + delta = da - mem->da; > > + > > + /* Check requested resource belongs to registered carveout > */ > > + if (delta < 0) { > > + dev_err(dev, > > + "Registered carveout doesn't fit da > request\n"); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + } > > + > > + if (delta + len > mem->len) { > > + dev_err(dev, > > + "Registered carveout doesn't fit len > request\n"); > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > + > > int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i) > > { > > struct rproc *rproc = rvdev->rproc; > >
Hi Loic, On 10/24/18 10:24 AM, Loic PALLARDY wrote: > Hi Suman, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> >> Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2018 00:14 >> To: Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@st.com>; bjorn.andersson@linaro.org; >> ohad@wizery.com >> Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; >> Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>; >> benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/17] remoteproc: add helper function to check >> carveout device address >> >> Hi Loic, >> >> On 7/27/18 8:14 AM, Loic Pallardy wrote: >>> This patch introduces a function to verify that a specified carveout >>> is fitting request device address and associated length >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 47 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >>> index 1e0fe3e..5dd5edf 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >>> @@ -259,6 +259,53 @@ struct rproc_mem_entry * >>> return mem; >>> } >>> >>> +/** >>> + * rproc_check_carveout_da() - Check specified carveout da configuration >>> + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor >>> + * @mem: pointer on carveout to check >>> + * @da: area device address >>> + * @len: associated area size >>> + * >>> + * This function is a helper function to verify requested device area >> (couple >>> + * da, len) is part of specified carevout. >> >> %s/carevout/carveout/ > OK >> >>> + * >>> + * Return: 0 if carveout matchs request else -ENOMEM >> >> %s/matchs/matches/ > OK >> >>> + */ >>> +int rproc_check_carveout_da(struct rproc *rproc, struct >> rproc_mem_entry *mem, >> >> static int since this seems to be only a local function. > OK >> >>> + u32 da, u32 len) >>> +{ >>> + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; >>> + int delta = 0; >>> + >>> + /* Check requested resource length */ >>> + if (len > mem->len) { >>> + dev_err(dev, "Registered carveout doesn't fit len >> request\n"); >>> + return -ENOMEM; >> >> ENOMEM not typically used for these kind of errors, you were probably >> inclined to used this since it is dealing with memory. > > -EINVAL will be better >> >>> + } >>> + >> >> Both the below codepaths are exercised only when da is not >> FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY, and you are returning 0 otherwise (which is the case of >> matches as per your description above). Is that what you really want - >> should it be an error > > Yes when da is equal to FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY we should check the length too Can you update the comments in the function description accordingly as well, the current code silently returns 0 if da = FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY. > >> >>> + if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da == FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) >> { >>> + /* Update existing carveout da */ >>> + mem->da = da; >> >> Where would you need to update this? > In that case, we have 2 carveouts with the same name. > One has some fixed requests. The other one has none. > The goal here is to align both on the one which has the strongest requirements. > I think length is missing. It almost looks like there is a need for range overlap checks on all the carveouts after all of them are registered, and error out if any overlap irrespective of the name schema. regards Suman > > Regards, > Loic > >> >> regards >> Suman >> >>> + } else if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da != >> FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { >>> + delta = da - mem->da; >>> + >>> + /* Check requested resource belongs to registered carveout >> */ >>> + if (delta < 0) { >>> + dev_err(dev, >>> + "Registered carveout doesn't fit da >> request\n"); >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + } >>> + >>> + if (delta + len > mem->len) { >>> + dev_err(dev, >>> + "Registered carveout doesn't fit len >> request\n"); >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >> >> >>> +} >>> + >>> int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i) >>> { >>> struct rproc *rproc = rvdev->rproc; >>> >
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index 1e0fe3e..5dd5edf 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -259,6 +259,53 @@ struct rproc_mem_entry * return mem; } +/** + * rproc_check_carveout_da() - Check specified carveout da configuration + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor + * @mem: pointer on carveout to check + * @da: area device address + * @len: associated area size + * + * This function is a helper function to verify requested device area (couple + * da, len) is part of specified carevout. + * + * Return: 0 if carveout matchs request else -ENOMEM + */ +int rproc_check_carveout_da(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry *mem, + u32 da, u32 len) +{ + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; + int delta = 0; + + /* Check requested resource length */ + if (len > mem->len) { + dev_err(dev, "Registered carveout doesn't fit len request\n"); + return -ENOMEM; + } + + if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da == FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { + /* Update existing carveout da */ + mem->da = da; + } else if (da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY && mem->da != FW_RSC_ADDR_ANY) { + delta = da - mem->da; + + /* Check requested resource belongs to registered carveout */ + if (delta < 0) { + dev_err(dev, + "Registered carveout doesn't fit da request\n"); + return -ENOMEM; + } + + if (delta + len > mem->len) { + dev_err(dev, + "Registered carveout doesn't fit len request\n"); + return -ENOMEM; + } + } + + return 0; +} + int rproc_alloc_vring(struct rproc_vdev *rvdev, int i) { struct rproc *rproc = rvdev->rproc;
This patch introduces a function to verify that a specified carveout is fitting request device address and associated length Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com> --- drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) -- 1.9.1