On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:30:30AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi again Mika,
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:23:26 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > I think you are right. For the code in acpi_watchdog.c:
> >
> > if (gas->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_MEMORY) {
> > res.flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
> > res.end = res.start + ALIGN(gas->access_width, 4) - 1;
> > } else if (gas->space_id == ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO) {
> > res.flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
> > res.end = res.start + gas->access_width - 1;
> > } else {
> > ..
> >
> > I think it does the "correct" thing, although it is bit convoluted. The
> > first one aligns it to 4 and the I/O access is either 8- or 16-bits so
> > it should be fine, unless I'm missing something.
>
> I'm looking again into this today. What was the rationale for the
> ALIGN() in the first place? The WDAT table is supposed to declare the
> resources with the appropriate width so it should not set access_width
> = 1 or 2 if the register should be accessed with 32-bit memory
> reads/writes, right? Could it be that the ALIGN() was added to solve
> the bug caused by using access_width directly instead of converting it
> to a byte count first?
>
> Or is the ALIGN() a safety guard against broken WDAT tables? I'm not
> sure what bad would happen from doing memory-mapped reads/writes of
> less than 32 bits, so I'm really wondering why the ALIGN() is there.
> Especially when the code in wdat_wdt itself doesn't align anything, so
> it's only about the resource size really. Requesting a resource larger
> than we need doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>
> (The underlying question being: can I get rid of that ALIGN()
> altogether while fixing the gas->access_width misuse bug?)
I think the ALIGN() was there just because I did not realize that
access_width is 3 and not 4 for 32-bit memory. So it is not needed.
I actually have a patch series that should fix this and the other issue
you found (I found a couple of spare cycles in the morning) so if you
don't mind I'll submit them soon.
