Re: [RFC PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: apply ACPI device based quirks

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

Hi Ard,

On 13/02/18 14:11, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Reapply the SynQuacer quirk for ITS frames that are matched by 'SCX0005'
> based ACPI devices, replacing the dummy fwnode with the one populated by
> the ACPI device core.
> 
> This allows the SynQuacer ACPI tables to publish a device node such
> as
> 
>     Device (ITS0) {
>       Name (_HID, "SCX0005")
>       Name (_ADR, 0x30020000)
>       Name (_DSD, Package ()  // _DSD: Device-Specific Data
>       {
>         ToUUID ("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
>         Package () {
>           Package (2) {
>             "socionext,synquacer-pre-its",
>             Package () { 0x58000000, 0x200000 }
>           },
>         }
>       })
>     }
> 
> which will trigger the existing quirk that replaces the doorbell
> address with the appropriate address in the pre-ITS frame.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> ---
> Marc, Lorenzo,
> 
> I am aware that this patch may be seen as controversial, but I would like to
> propose it nonetheless. The reason is that this is the only thing standing in
> the way of full ACPI support in Socionext SynQuacer based platforms.
> 
> The pre-ITS is a monstrosity, but as it turns out, Socionext had help from
> ARM designing it, and the reason we need DT/ACPI based quirks in the first
> place is that the IIDR of this GICv3 implementation is simply the ARM Ltd.
> one (as they designed the IP)

That's odd. A bit of archaeology shows that ARM indeed designed a
pre-ITS, but that one doesn't break isolation at all (it still has a
single doorbell). So whatever creative changes Socionext applied to that
piece of IP (assuming this is the same IP), they didn't really
understand the far reaching impact it has.

> 
> Please take this into consideration when reviewing this patch,
> 
> Thanks,
> Ard.
> 
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 06f025fd5726..a63973baf08a 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -3517,3 +3517,42 @@ int __init its_init(struct fwnode_handle *handle, struct rdists *rdists,
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOCIONEXT_SYNQUACER_PREITS) && defined(CONFIG_ACPI)
> +static acpi_status __init acpi_its_device_probe (acpi_handle handle,
> +						 u32 depth, void *context,
> +						 void **ret)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *adev;
> +	unsigned long long phys_base;
> +	struct its_node *its;
> +	acpi_status status;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	err = acpi_bus_get_device(handle, &adev);
> +	if (err)
> +		return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> +
> +	status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "_ADR", NULL, &phys_base);
> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> +		return status;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(its, &its_nodes, entry)
> +		if (its->phys_base == phys_base) {
> +			irq_domain_free_fwnode(its->fwnode_handle);

That line scares me. What about irq domains that are hold a pointer to
this handle? its_init_domain() uses it to construct the LPI domain, and
it is now pointing to some free memory.

You'd need to reassign all the domains that match this fwnode before
freeing it.

> +			its->fwnode_handle = &adev->fwnode;
> +			its_enable_quirk_socionext_synquacer(its);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +
> +	return AE_CTRL_TERMINATE;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init acpi_its_device_probe_init(void)
> +{
> +	if (!acpi_disabled)
> +		acpi_get_devices("SCX0005", acpi_its_device_probe, NULL, NULL);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall_sync(acpi_its_device_probe_init);
> +#endif
> 

Is there any chance that MSIs could be allocated before this kicks in?
If that happens, we're in trouble...

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...