Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] fpga: dfl: add basic support DFHv1

Andy Shevchenko
2022-10-20T22:07:17Z

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 02:26:09PM -0700, matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Matthew Gerlach <matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com>
>
> Add generic support for MSI-X interrupts for DFL devices.
>
> The location of a feature's registers is explicitly
> described in DFHv1 and can be relative to the base of the DFHv1
> or an absolute address. Parse the location and pass the information
> to DFL driver.

...

> +static void *find_param(void *base, resource_size_t max, int param)

Why base can't be u64 * to begin with?

> +{
> + int off = 0;
> + u64 v, next;
> +
> + while (off < max) {

Maybe you need a comment somewhere to tell that the caller guarantees that max
won't provoke OOB accesses.

> + v = *(u64 *)(base + off);

Okay, if offset is not multiple of at least 4, how do you guarantee no
exception on the architectures with disallowed misaligned accesses?

Making base to be u64 * solves this, but you need to take care to provide
offset in terms of u64 words.

> + if (param == FIELD_GET(DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_ID, v))
> + return base + off + DFHv1_PARAM_DATA;
> +
> + next = FIELD_GET(DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_OFFSET, v);
> + off += next & ~DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_MASK;
> + if (next & DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_EOL)
> + break;
> +
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}

...

> + /*
> + * DFHv0 only provides mmio resource information for each feature

MMIO

> + * in the DFL header. There is no generic interrupt information.
> + * Instead, features with interrupt functionality provide
> + * the information in feature specific registers.
> + */

...

> + if (!finfo->param_size)
> break;

This is redundant as it's implied by find_param().

> + p = find_param(params, finfo->param_size, DFHv1_PARAM_ID_MSI_X);
> + if (!p)
> break;

...

> +static int dfh_get_psize(void __iomem *dfh_base, resource_size_t max)
> +{
> + int size = 0;
> + u64 v, next;
> +
> + if (!FIELD_GET(DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP_HAS_PARAMS,
> + readq(dfh_base + DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + while (size + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR < max) {
> + v = readq(dfh_base + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR + size);
> +
> + next = FIELD_GET(DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_OFFSET, v);
> + if (!(next & ~DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_MASK))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + size += next & ~DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_MASK;
> +
> + if (next & DFHv1_PARAM_HDR_NEXT_EOL)
> + return size;

These 3 looks like they deserve different fields and hence separate FIELD_GET()
will return exactly what we need without additional masking, right?

> + }
> +
> + return -ENOENT;
> +}

...

> + if (dfh_psize > 0) {

Isn't this implied by memcpy_fromio()? I mean if it's 0, nothing bad will
happen if you call the above directly.

> + memcpy_fromio(finfo->params,
> + binfo->ioaddr + ofst + DFHv1_PARAM_HDR, dfh_psize);
> + finfo->param_size = dfh_psize;
> + }

...

> finfo->mmio_res.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
> + if (dfh_ver == 1) {
> + v = readq(binfo->ioaddr + ofst + DFHv1_CSR_ADDR);
> + if (v & DFHv1_CSR_ADDR_REL)
> + finfo->mmio_res.start = v & ~DFHv1_CSR_ADDR_REL;
> + else
> + finfo->mmio_res.start = binfo->start + ofst +
> + FIELD_GET(DFHv1_CSR_ADDR_MASK, v);
> +
> + v = readq(binfo->ioaddr + ofst + DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP);
> + finfo->mmio_res.end = finfo->mmio_res.start +
> + FIELD_GET(DFHv1_CSR_SIZE_GRP_SIZE, v) - 1;
> + } else {
> + finfo->mmio_res.start = binfo->start + ofst;
> + finfo->mmio_res.end = finfo->mmio_res.start + size - 1;
> + }

You may define

resource_size_t start, end;

locally and simplify above quite a bit.

...

> +void *dfh_find_param(struct dfl_device *dfl_dev, int param);

+ Blank line.

> #endif /* __LINUX_DFL_H */

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko