lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v5 05/14] net: fman: Map the base address once
Hi Sean,

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 5:34 PM Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/22 11:15 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 12:00 AM Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com> wrote:
> >> We don't need to remap the base address from the resource twice (once in
> >> mac_probe() and again in set_fman_mac_params()). We still need the
> >> resource to get the end address, but we can use a single function call
> >> to get both at once.
> >>
> >> While we're at it, use platform_get_mem_or_io and devm_request_resource
> >> to map the resource. I think this is the more "correct" way to do things
> >> here, since we use the pdev resource, instead of creating a new one.
> >> It's still a bit tricky, since we need to ensure that the resource is a
> >> child of the fman region when it gets requested.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@seco.com>
> >> Acked-by: Camelia Groza <camelia.groza@nxp.com>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 262f2b782e255b79
> > ("net: fman: Map the base address once") in v6.1-rc1.
> >
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth_sysfs.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/dpaa/dpaa_eth_sysfs.c
> >> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static ssize_t dpaa_eth_show_addr(struct device *dev,
> >>
> >> if (mac_dev)
> >> return sprintf(buf, "%llx",
> >> - (unsigned long long)mac_dev->res->start);
> >> + (unsigned long long)mac_dev->vaddr);
> >
> > On 32-bit:
> >
> > warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size
> > [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
> >
> > Obviously you should cast to "uintptr_t" or "unsigned long" instead,
> > and change the "%llx" to "%p" or "%lx"...
>
> Isn't there a %px for this purpose?

Yes there is. But if it makes sense to use that depends on the
still to be answered questions at the bottom...

> > However, taking a closer look:
> > 1. The old code exposed a physical address to user space, the new
> > code exposes the mapped virtual address.
> > Is that change intentional?
>
> No, this is not intentional. So to make this backwards-compatible, I
> suppose I need a virt_to_phys?

I think virt_to_phys() will work only on real memory, not on MMIO,
so you may need to reintroduce the resource again.

> > 2. Virtual addresses are useless in user space.
> > Moreover, addresses printed by "%p" are obfuscated, as this is
> > considered a security issue. Likewise for working around this by
> > casting to an integer.
>
> Yes, you're right that this probably shouldn't be exposed to userspace.
>
> > What's the real purpose of dpaa_eth_show_addr()?
>
> I have no idea. This is a question for Madalin.
>
> > Perhaps it should be removed?
>
> That would be reasonable IMO.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-17 17:49    [W:0.781 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site