Le 23/08/2022 à 14:32, Baoquan He a écrit :
> On 08/23/22 at 05:33am, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 23/08/2022 à 03:19, Baoquan He a écrit :
>>> On 08/22/22 at 06:30am, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 20/08/2022 à 02:31, Baoquan He a écrit :
>>>>> On some architectures, the physical address need be fixed up before
>>>>> doing mapping, e.g, parisc. And on architectures, e.g arc, the
>>>>> parameter 'prot' passed into ioremap_prot() need be adjusted too.
>>>>>
>>>>> In oder to convert them to take GENERIC_IOREMAP method, we need wrap
>>>>> the address fixing up code and page prot adjusting code into arch_ioremap()
>>>>> and pass the new address and 'prot' out for ioremap_prot() handling.
>>>>
>>>> Is it really the best approach ? Wouldn't it be better to have helpers
>>>> to do that, those helpers being called by the ioremap_prot(), instead of
>>>> doing it inside the arch_ioremap() function ?
>>>
>>> This is suggested too by Alexander during his v1 reviewing. I tried, but
>>> feel the current way taken in this patchset is better. Because not all
>>> architecutres need the address fix up, only parisc, and only few need
>>> adjust the 'prot'. Introducing other helpers seems too much, that only
>>> increases the complexity of of ioremap() and the generic GENERIC_IOREMAP
>>> method for people to understand and take.
>>
>> I can't understand. Why is it difficult to do something like:
>>
>> #ifndef ioremap_adjust_prot
>> static inline unsigned long ioremap_adjust_prot(unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> return flags;
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> Then for arc you do
>>
>> static inline unsigned long ioremap_adjust_prot(unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> return pgprot_val(pgprot_noncached(__pgprot(flags)));
>> }
>> #define ioremap_adjust_prot ioremap_adjust_prot
>
> My thinking is we have four things to do in the added hookers.
> 1) check if we should do ioremap on ARCHes. If not, return NULL from
> ioremap_prot();
> 2) handling the mapping io address specifically on ARCHes, e.g arc,
> ia64, s390;
> 3) the original physical address passed into ioremap_prot() need be
> fixed up, e.g arc;
> 4) the 'prot' passed into ioremap_prot() need be adjusted, e.g on arc
> and xtensa.
>
> With Kefeng's patches, the case 1) is handled with introduced
> ioremap_allowed()/iounmap_allowed(). In this patchset, what I do is
> rename the hooks as arch_ioremap() and arch_iounmap(), then put case 1),
> 2), 3), 4) handling into arch_ioremap(). Adding helpers to cover each
> case is not difficult from my side. I worry that as time goes by, those
> several hooks my cause issue, e.g if a new adjustment need be done,
> should we introduce a new helper or make do with the existed hook; how
>
> When I investigated this, one arch_ioremap() looks not complicated
> since not all ARCHes need cover all above 4 cases. That's why I finally
> choose one hook. I am open to new idea, please let me know if we should
> change it to introduce several different helpers.
>
A new idea that would have my preference would be to do just like we did
with arch_get_unmapped_area(). Look at
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc1/source/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/slice.c#L638
and https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc1/source/mm/mmap.c#L2131
Instead of having the generic that calls the arch specific, make it the
other way round, have the arch specific call the generic after doing its
specialties.
>>
>>
>> By the way, could be a good opportunity to change ioremap_prot() flags
>> type from unsigned long to pgprot_t
>
> Tend to agree, I will give it a shot.
>
