On Thu, 5 May 2016 14:22:06 +0100
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 05/05/16 13:06, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Hi Jon,
> >
> > On 04/05/16 17:25, Jon Hunter wrote:
> >> Setting the interrupt type for private peripheral interrupts (PPIs) may
> >> not be supported by a given GIC because it is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED
> >> whether this is allowed. There is no way to know if setting the type is
> >> supported for a given GIC and so the value written is read back to
> >> verify it matches the desired configuration. If it does not match then
> >> an error is return.
> >>
> >> There are cases where the interrupt configuration read from firmware
> >> (such as a device-tree blob), has been incorrect and hence
> >> gic_configure_irq() has returned an error. This error has gone
> >> undetected because the error code returned was ignored but the interrupt
> >> still worked fine because the configuration for the interrupt could not
> >> be overwritten.
> >>
> >> Given that this has done undetected and that failing to set the
> >> configuration for a PPI may not be a catastrophic, don't return an error
> >> but WARN if we fail to configure a PPI. This will allows us to fix up
> >> any places in the kernel where we should be checking the return status
> >> and maintain backward compatibility with firmware images that may have
> >> incorrect PPI configurations.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c | 11 +++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> >> index ffff5a45f1e3..9fa92a17225c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> >> @@ -56,12 +56,15 @@ int gic_configure_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int type,
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * Write back the new configuration, and possibly re-enable
> >> - * the interrupt. If we fail to write a new configuration,
> >> - * return an error.
> >> + * the interrupt. WARN if we fail to write a new configuration
> >> + * and return an error if we failed to write the configuration
> >> + * for an SPI. If we fail to write the configuration for a PPI
> >> + * this is most likely because the GIC does not allow us to set
> >> + * the configuration and so it is not a catastrophic failure.
> >> */
> >> writel_relaxed(val, base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff);
> >> - if (readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff) != val)
> >> - ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + if (WARN_ON(readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff) != val))
> >> + ret = irq < 32 ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> if (sync_access)
> >> sync_access();
> >>
> >
> > I'm going to slightly backpedal on that one:
> >
> > When running in non-secure mode, you can reconfigure secure interrupts
>
> Do you mean 'cannot'?
Yes, sorry.
> > (for obvious reasons). But you don't know which mode you're running in
> > either. A typical example is the arch timer, which requests both secure
> > and non-secure interrupts, because we cannot know which side of the CPU
> > we're running on. In the non-secure case, we end-up with a splat that
> > is rather undeserved.
>
> Yes seems sensible.
>
> > So I'm tempted to tone down the splat in the PPI case like this:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> > index 083c303..1605e42 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.c
> > @@ -63,8 +63,17 @@ int gic_configure_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int type,
> > * the configuration and so it is not a catastrophic failure.
> > */
> > writel_relaxed(val, base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff);
> > - if (WARN_ON(readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff) != val))
> > - ret = irq < 32 ? 0 : -EINVAL;
> > + oldval = readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CONFIG + confoff);
> > + if (oldval != val) {
> > + if (irq < 32) {
> > + pr_warn("GIC: PPI%d is either secure or misconfigured\n",
> > + irq - 16);
> > + ret = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + WARN_ON(1);
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > if (sync_access)
> > sync_access();
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> That is fine with me. Do you want me to re-spin or do you want to apply
> your change on top? However, before I re-spin would like to get your
> thoughts on patches 13-17.
I can squash this into your own patch if you're OK with it. I'll reply
to your other patches shortly, as I have a number of comments there.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
