[PATCH v4 07/10] ARM: Introduce MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT macro

[Marc Zyngier]

On 13/09/16 11:32, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
> On 13/09/16 11:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 13/09/16 10:04, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>> On 13/09/16 09:38, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:49:21PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote:
>>>>> vgic-v3 driver uses architecture specific MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT macro to
>>>>> encode the affinity in a form compatible with ICC_SGI* registers.
>>>>> Unfortunately, that macro is missing on ARM, so let's add it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel at armlinux.org.uk>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin at arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h |    1 +
>>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h
>>>>> index 1ee94c7..e2d94c1 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h
>>>>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #define MPIDR_LEVEL_BITS 8
>>>>>  #define MPIDR_LEVEL_MASK ((1 << MPIDR_LEVEL_BITS) - 1)
>>>>> +#define MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(level) (MPIDR_LEVEL_BITS * level)
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I follow the correctness of this completely.
>>>>
>>>> This is called from vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi, which takes a u64 value, which
>>>> may have something in the Aff3 field, which we now shift left 24 bits,
>>>> but that is not the Aff3 field of AArch32's MPIDR.
>>>>
>>>> What is the rationale for this making sense again?
>>>
>>> IIUC, in such case we construct mpidr which won't match in match_mpidr()
>>> with the value we get from kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff() and no SGI will be
>>> sent to the guest.
>>>
>>> Since we get that u64 value from the guest, I'd think it is something
>>> wrong is going on in the guest in case Aff3 is non-zero; however, we can
>>> hide it by zeroing out SGI Aff3 bits in access_gic_sgi().
>>
>> I don't think zeroing Aff3 is the right move, as the spec doesn't say
>> that Aff3 should be ignored in a write to ICC_SGI1R. On the other hand,
>> the spec says (in the context of the target list): "If a bit is 1 and
>> the bit does not correspond to a valid target PE, the bit must be
>> ignored by the Distributor".
>>
>> This makes me think that, unless ICC_SGI1R.IMR is set, we should simply
>> ignore that SGI because there is no way we can actually deliver it.
>>
>> Could you cook a small patch that would go on top of this series?
> 
> I assume you've meant ICC_SGI1R.IRM, aka broadcast. In this case,

Yes, sorry.

> vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi() seems already matches the logic you've described:
> 
> - if IRM == 1, send to everyone except self without check for mpidr
> - if IRM == 0, send to target iff matched to a valid mpidr
> 
> Am I missing something?

Not much. My only ask was that if Aff3 was set, we could take the
shortcut of not calling vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi() at all and return
immediately. But as you said, we already deal with the case of invalid
MPIDRs.

Thanks,

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