El jue, 16 mar 2023 a las 20:10, Florian Fainelli
(<f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
>
> On 3/16/23 12:04, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> > El jue, 16 mar 2023 a las 19:13, Florian Fainelli
> > (<f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
> >>
> >> On 3/16/23 11:07, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
> >>> It's safe to show MMIO address.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> This is going to be the kernel virtual address, and while on MIPS it is
> >> easy to resolve to the physical address because these platforms map
> >> registers through KSEG0/1, on other platforms like ARM/ARM64 the kernel
> >> virtual addresses are pretty meaningless unless what you want to debug
> >> is how ioremap() mapped the address.
> >>
> >> I would rather do the following change:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
> >> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
> >> index 1bd0621c4ce2..832957d363a4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm6345-l1.c
> >> @@ -261,6 +261,8 @@ static int __init bcm6345_l1_init_one(struct
> >> device_node *dn,
> >> if (!cpu->map_base)
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> + request_mem_region(res.start, sz, res.name);
> >> +
> >> for (i = 0; i < n_words; i++) {
> >> cpu->enable_cache[i] = 0;
> >> __raw_writel(0, cpu->map_base + reg_enable(intc, i));
> >>
> >> such that this shows up in /proc/iomem. WDYT?
> >
> > I tried doing it that way, but it still shows (ptrval):
> > [ 0.000000] irq_bcm6345_l1: registered BCM6345 L1 intc (IRQs: 32)
> > [ 0.000000] irq_bcm6345_l1: CPU0 at MMIO 0x(ptrval) (irq = 2)
>
> Well yes, if you don't remove the pr_info() you are still going to be
> printing it, and because map_base is the return of ioremap() which is a
> kernel virtual address, it is still hashed, also see Marc's message that
> came in. I guess I should have been way more explicit and also provide a
> tentative patch that also took out the pr_info().
Ah, sorry for that, I didn't get your point...
However, I'd rather keep the pr_info, so I just removed the MMIO address in v2.
>
> >
> > I checked /proc/iomem and it's shown:
> > root@OpenWrt:/# cat /proc/iomem
> > 00000000-03ffffff : System RAM
> > 00010000-0068e96f : Kernel code
> > 0068e970-008834ff : Kernel data
> > 01610000-016458e7 : Kernel bss
> > 08000000-0800ffff : BCM6348 PCI IO space
> > 1e000000-1fffffff : 1e000000.nor nor@1e000000
> > 30000000-37ffffff : pci@fffe1000
> > 30000000-3000ffff : 0000:00:01.0
> > 30000000-3000ffff : ath9k
> > fffe0004-fffe0007 : fffe0004.clock-controller clock-controller@fffe0004
> > fffe000c-fffe0013 : interrupt-controller@fffe000c
> > fffe0034-fffe0037 : fffe0034.reset-controller reset-controller@fffe0034
> > fffe005c-fffe0067 : fffe005c.watchdog watchdog@fffe005c
> > fffe0100-fffe0117 : fffe0100.serial serial@fffe0100
> > fffe1000-fffe11ff : fffe1000.pci pci
> > fffe1300-fffe13ff : fffe1300.usb usb@fffe1300
> > fffe1400-fffe14ff : fffe1400.usb usb@fffe1400
> > fffe1500-fffe1537 : fffe1500.usb-phy usb-phy@fffe1500
> >
> > Any idea why this could be hapenning?
>
> We now have the desired resource listed using its physical address:
>
> fffe000c-fffe0013 : interrupt-controller@fffe000c
>
> There could be a variety of improvements to how request_mem_region() is
> called if you want to provide a break down of each resource on a per-CPU
> basis.
> --
> Florian
>
Álvaro
