Le 01/06/2022 à 07:42, Neal Liu a écrit :
> Add HACE crypto driver to support symmetric-key
> encryption and decryption with multiple modes of
> operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Neal Liu <neal_liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Johnny Huang <johnny_huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/crypto/aspeed/Kconfig | 16 +
> drivers/crypto/aspeed/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace-crypto.c | 1019 ++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.c | 101 +-
> drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.h | 107 ++
> 5 files changed, 1242 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace-crypto.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/aspeed/Kconfig
b/drivers/crypto/aspeed/Kconfig
> index 17b800286a51..5e4d18288bf1 100644
[...]
> +int aspeed_register_hace_crypto_algs(struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev)
> +{
> + int rc, i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(aspeed_crypto_algs); i++) {
> + aspeed_crypto_algs[i].hace_dev = hace_dev;
> + rc = crypto_register_skcipher(&aspeed_crypto_algs[i].alg.skcipher);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> + }
> +
> + if (hace_dev->version == AST2600_VERSION) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(aspeed_crypto_algs_g6); i++) {
> + aspeed_crypto_algs_g6[i].hace_dev = hace_dev;
> + rc = crypto_register_skcipher(
> + &aspeed_crypto_algs_g6[i].alg.skcipher);
> + if (rc)
> + return rc;
> + }
> + }
Should there be some kind of error handling here, in order to undo
things already done if an error occures?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.c
b/drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.c
> index f25b13d120e8..f7f90c230843 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/aspeed/aspeed-hace.c
> @@ -40,10 +40,30 @@ void __weak
aspeed_unregister_hace_hash_algs(struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev)
> pr_warn("%s: Not supported yet\n", __func__);
> }
>
> +/* Weak function for HACE crypto */
> +int __weak aspeed_hace_crypto_handle_queue(struct aspeed_hace_dev
*hace_dev,
> + struct crypto_async_request *new_areq)
> +{
> + pr_warn("%s: Not supported yet\n", __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +int __weak aspeed_register_hace_crypto_algs(struct aspeed_hace_dev
*hace_dev)
> +{
> + pr_warn("%s: Not supported yet\n", __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +void __weak aspeed_unregister_hace_crypto_algs(struct
aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev)
> +{
> + pr_warn("%s: Not supported yet\n", __func__);
> +}
> +
> /* HACE interrupt service routine */
> static irqreturn_t aspeed_hace_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> {
> struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev = (struct aspeed_hace_dev *)dev;
> + struct aspeed_engine_crypto *crypto_engine = &hace_dev->crypto_engine;
> struct aspeed_engine_hash *hash_engine = &hace_dev->hash_engine;
> u32 sts;
>
> @@ -56,12 +76,36 @@ static irqreturn_t aspeed_hace_irq(int irq, void
*dev)
> if (hash_engine->flags & CRYPTO_FLAGS_BUSY)
> tasklet_schedule(&hash_engine->done_task);
> else
> - dev_warn(hace_dev->dev, "no active requests.\n");
> + dev_warn(hace_dev->dev, "HASH no active requests.\n");
To reduce diff, maybe this could already be part of patch 1/5?
> + }
> +
> + if (sts & HACE_CRYPTO_ISR) {
> + if (crypto_engine->flags & CRYPTO_FLAGS_BUSY)
> + tasklet_schedule(&crypto_engine->done_task);
> + else
> + dev_warn(hace_dev->dev, "CRYPTO no active requests.\n");
> }
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> +static void aspeed_hace_cryptro_done_task(unsigned long data)
> +{
> + struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev = (struct aspeed_hace_dev *)data;
> + struct aspeed_engine_crypto *crypto_engine;
> +
> + crypto_engine = &hace_dev->crypto_engine;
> + crypto_engine->is_async = true;
> + crypto_engine->resume(hace_dev);
> +}
> +
> +static void aspeed_hace_crypto_queue_task(unsigned long data)
> +{
> + struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev = (struct aspeed_hace_dev *)data;
> +
> + aspeed_hace_crypto_handle_queue(hace_dev, NULL);
> +}
> +
> static void aspeed_hace_hash_done_task(unsigned long data)
> {
> struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev = (struct aspeed_hace_dev *)data;
> @@ -79,12 +123,27 @@ static void aspeed_hace_hash_queue_task(unsigned
long data)
>
> static int aspeed_hace_register(struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev)
> {
> - return aspeed_register_hace_hash_algs(hace_dev);
> + int rc1, rc2;
> +
> + rc1 = aspeed_register_hace_hash_algs(hace_dev);
> + if (rc1) {
> + HACE_DBG(hace_dev, "Failed to register hash alg, rc:0x%x\n",
> + rc1);
> + }
> +
> + rc2 = aspeed_register_hace_crypto_algs(hace_dev);
> + if (rc2) {
> + HACE_DBG(hace_dev, "Failed to register crypto alg, rc:0x%x\n",
> + rc2);
> + }
> +
> + return rc1 + rc2;
This looks odd. The error returned could finally be pointless if both
rc1 and rc2 are not 0.
> }
>
> static void aspeed_hace_unregister(struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev)
> {
> aspeed_unregister_hace_hash_algs(hace_dev);
> + aspeed_unregister_hace_crypto_algs(hace_dev);
> }
>
> static const struct of_device_id aspeed_hace_of_matches[] = {
> @@ -95,6 +154,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id
aspeed_hace_of_matches[] = {
>
> static int aspeed_hace_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> + struct aspeed_engine_crypto *crypto_engine;
> const struct of_device_id *hace_dev_id;
> struct aspeed_engine_hash *hash_engine;
> struct aspeed_hace_dev *hace_dev;
> @@ -115,6 +175,7 @@ static int aspeed_hace_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
> hace_dev->dev = &pdev->dev;
> hace_dev->version = (unsigned long)hace_dev_id->data;
> hash_engine = &hace_dev->hash_engine;
> + crypto_engine = &hace_dev->crypto_engine;
>
> res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>
> @@ -127,6 +188,13 @@ static int aspeed_hace_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
> (unsigned long)hace_dev);
> crypto_init_queue(&hash_engine->queue, ASPEED_HASH_QUEUE_LENGTH);
>
> + spin_lock_init(&crypto_engine->lock);
> + tasklet_init(&crypto_engine->done_task, aspeed_hace_cryptro_done_task,
> + (unsigned long)hace_dev);
> + tasklet_init(&crypto_engine->queue_task, aspeed_hace_crypto_queue_task,
> + (unsigned long)hace_dev);
> + crypto_init_queue(&crypto_engine->queue, ASPEED_HASH_QUEUE_LENGTH);
> +
> hace_dev->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> if (!hace_dev->regs) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to map resources\n");
> @@ -168,9 +236,36 @@ static int aspeed_hace_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> + crypto_engine->cipher_ctx =
> + dma_alloc_coherent(&pdev->dev,
> + PAGE_SIZE,
> + &crypto_engine->cipher_ctx_dma,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
Should all these dma_alloc_coherent() be undone in the error handling
path of the probe and in the .rmove function?
If applicable, maybe dmam_alloc_coherent() would ease? realeasing of
resources?
> + crypto_engine->cipher_addr =
> + dma_alloc_coherent(&pdev->dev,
> + ASPEED_CRYPTO_SRC_DMA_BUF_LEN,
> + &crypto_engine->cipher_dma_addr,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!crypto_engine->cipher_ctx || !crypto_engine->cipher_addr) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate cipher dma\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + if (hace_dev->version == AST2600_VERSION) {
> + crypto_engine->dst_sg_addr =
> + dma_alloc_coherent(&pdev->dev,
> + ASPEED_CRYPTO_DST_DMA_BUF_LEN,
> + &crypto_engine->dst_sg_dma_addr,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!crypto_engine->dst_sg_addr) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate dst_sg dma\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + }
> +
> rc = aspeed_hace_register(hace_dev);
> if (rc) {
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register hash alg, rc:0x%x\n", rc);
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register algs, rc:0x%x\n", rc);
To reduce diff, maybe this could already be part of patch 1/5?
> rc = 0;
> }
> [...]
