[RFC PATCH 0/3] Add prepare/unprepare method in spi_controller_mem_ops

[RFC PATCH 0/3] Add prepare/unprepare method in spi_controller_mem_ops

[Yicong Yang]

In this series:
- Add optional prepare/unprepare methods in spi_controller_mem_ops to allow
  the controller do specific works before/after a set of operations, like
  spi-nor flash's read/write/erase/lock/unlock. This is equivalent mechanism
  to spi_nor_controller_ops' prepare/unprepare methods.
- Implement prepare/unprepare methods for hisi-sfc-v3xx controller. This will
  solve a race condition between the kernel driver and firmware.

Yicong Yang (3):
  spi: spi-mem: add optional prepare/unprepare methods in
    spi_controller_mem_ops
  mtd: spi-nor: Add prepare/unprepare support for spimem device
  spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race
    condition

 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c      |  8 ++++++--
 drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 drivers/spi/spi-mem.c           | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h     | 11 +++++++++++
 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.8.1


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

[RFC PATCH 1/3] spi: spi-mem: add optional prepare/unprepare methods in spi_controller_mem_ops

[Yicong Yang]

Some prepare/unprepare works may be necessary before/after a set of
operations of the spimem device. For example, before/after spi-nor
flash's read/write/erase/lock/unlock.

Add optional prepare/unprepare methods in spi_controller_mem_ops to allow
the controller to do specific works after/before the operations. The upper
user can use spi_mem_{prepare, unprepare}() to call the methods of the
controller.

Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-mem.c       | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h | 11 +++++++++++
 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
index adaa0c4..f09cef1 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c
@@ -220,6 +220,26 @@ bool spi_mem_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_supports_op);
 
+int spi_mem_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
+{
+	struct spi_controller *ctlr = mem->spi->controller;
+
+	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->prepare)
+		return ctlr->mem_ops->prepare(mem);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_prepare);
+
+void spi_mem_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
+{
+	struct spi_controller *ctlr = mem->spi->controller;
+
+	if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->unprepare)
+		ctlr->mem_ops->unprepare(mem);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_unprepare);
+
 static int spi_mem_access_start(struct spi_mem *mem)
 {
 	struct spi_controller *ctlr = mem->spi->controller;
diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h b/include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h
index af9ff2f..e40b5c3 100644
--- a/include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h
+++ b/include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h
@@ -215,6 +215,12 @@ static inline void *spi_mem_get_drvdata(struct spi_mem *mem)
  *		    limitations)
  * @supports_op: check if an operation is supported by the controller
  * @exec_op: execute a SPI memory operation
+ * @prepare: do some prepare works before a set of operations. for example,
+ *	     read/write/erase/lock/unlock operations of spi-nor flash. This
+ *	     method is optional.
+ * @unprepare: do some post works after a set of operations. for example,
+ *	       read/write/erase/lock/unlock operations of spi-nor flash. This
+ *	       method is optional.
  * @get_name: get a custom name for the SPI mem device from the controller.
  *	      This might be needed if the controller driver has been ported
  *	      to use the SPI mem layer and a custom name is used to keep
@@ -253,6 +259,8 @@ struct spi_controller_mem_ops {
 	int (*adjust_op_size)(struct spi_mem *mem, struct spi_mem_op *op);
 	bool (*supports_op)(struct spi_mem *mem,
 			    const struct spi_mem_op *op);
+	int (*prepare)(struct spi_mem *mem);
+	void (*unprepare)(struct spi_mem *mem);
 	int (*exec_op)(struct spi_mem *mem,
 		       const struct spi_mem_op *op);
 	const char *(*get_name)(struct spi_mem *mem);
@@ -329,6 +337,9 @@ int spi_mem_adjust_op_size(struct spi_mem *mem, struct spi_mem_op *op);
 bool spi_mem_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
 			 const struct spi_mem_op *op);
 
+int spi_mem_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem);
+void spi_mem_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem);
+
 int spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
 		    const struct spi_mem_op *op);
 
-- 
2.8.1


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

[RFC PATCH 2/3] mtd: spi-nor: Add prepare/unprepare support for spimem device

[Yicong Yang]

spi-nor flash's read/write/erase/lock/unlock may be composed of a set
of operations, and some prepare/unprepare works need to be done before/
after these operations in spi_nor_{lock, unlock}_and_{prep, unprep}().
Previously we only call spi-nor controllers' prepare/unprepare method
in the functions, without spimem devices'.

Add spimem devices' prepare/unprepare support. Call spi_mem_{prepare,
unprepare}() function if it's a spimem device.

Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
index cc68ea8..3a7e40a 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/core.c
@@ -1103,7 +1103,9 @@ int spi_nor_lock_and_prep(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 	mutex_lock(&nor->lock);
 
-	if (nor->controller_ops &&  nor->controller_ops->prepare) {
+	if (nor->spimem) {
+		ret = spi_mem_prepare(nor->spimem);
+	} else if (nor->controller_ops &&  nor->controller_ops->prepare) {
 		ret = nor->controller_ops->prepare(nor);
 		if (ret) {
 			mutex_unlock(&nor->lock);
@@ -1115,7 +1117,9 @@ int spi_nor_lock_and_prep(struct spi_nor *nor)
 
 void spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep(struct spi_nor *nor)
 {
-	if (nor->controller_ops && nor->controller_ops->unprepare)
+	if (nor->spimem)
+		spi_mem_unprepare(nor->spimem);
+	else if (nor->controller_ops && nor->controller_ops->unprepare)
 		nor->controller_ops->unprepare(nor);
 	mutex_unlock(&nor->lock);
 }
-- 
2.8.1


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

[RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Yicong Yang]

The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.

Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
issue.

Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
 
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
+#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
@@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
 	int max_cmd_dword;
 };
 
+int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
+{
+	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
+	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
+	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
+
+	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
+
+	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
+
+	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
+	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
+		return -EIO;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
+{
+	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
+	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
+
+	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
+
+	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
+	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
+}
+
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
 #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
 
@@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
 					 u8 chip_select)
 {
 	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
-	u32 config = 0;
+	u32 config;
+
+	/*
+	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
+	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
+	 * .prepare().
+	 */
+	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
+	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
 
 	if (op->addr.nbytes)
 		config |= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_ADDR_EN_MSK;
@@ -248,6 +285,8 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
 
 static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops hisi_sfc_v3xx_mem_ops = {
 	.adjust_op_size = hisi_sfc_v3xx_adjust_op_size,
+	.prepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare,
+	.unprepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare,
 	.exec_op = hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op,
 };
 
-- 
2.8.1


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Pratyush Yadav]

Hi Yicong,

On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> 
> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> issue.

I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
probably do something like:

  hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
  ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
  hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
  return ret;

What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.

> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
>  
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
> +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
> @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
>  	int max_cmd_dword;
>  };
>  
> +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> +
> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> +
> +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +
> +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
> +		return -EIO;

IIUC, you are checking if you actually got the lock, and you won't get 
the lock if the firmware is using the controller. So, is it a good idea 
to give up so easily? Maybe we should do this in a loop at some 
intervals, and only error out when we reach a number of failed attempts?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> +
> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> +
> +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
> +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +}
> +
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
>  
> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
>  					 u8 chip_select)
>  {
>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
> -	u32 config = 0;
> +	u32 config;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
> +	 * .prepare().
> +	 */
> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;

This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
the kernel buffer?
  
>  	if (op->addr.nbytes)
>  		config |= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_ADDR_EN_MSK;
> @@ -248,6 +285,8 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  
>  static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops hisi_sfc_v3xx_mem_ops = {
>  	.adjust_op_size = hisi_sfc_v3xx_adjust_op_size,
> +	.prepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare,
> +	.unprepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare,
>  	.exec_op = hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op,
>  };
>  

FWIW, the other two patches in the series look good to me given you can 
justify the need for having the API.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 21:44:36 +0530
Pratyush Yadav <me@yadavpratyush.com> wrote:

> Hi Yicong,
> 
> On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
> > The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> > problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> > composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> > and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> > kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> > 
> > Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> > protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> > cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> > unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> > method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> > issue.  
> 
> I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
> performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
> probably do something like:
> 
>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
>   ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
>   return ret;
> 
> What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
> a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
> is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
> would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
> some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
> >  
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
> > +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
> > @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
> >  	int max_cmd_dword;
> >  };
> >  
> > +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> > +{
> > +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> > +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> > +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> > +
> > +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> > +
> > +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > +
> > +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
> > +		return -EIO;  
> 
> IIUC, you are checking if you actually got the lock, and you won't get 
> the lock if the firmware is using the controller. So, is it a good idea 
> to give up so easily? Maybe we should do this in a loop at some 
> intervals, and only error out when we reach a number of failed attempts?
> 
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> > +{
> > +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> > +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> > +
> > +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> > +
> > +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
> > +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > +}
> > +
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
> >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
> >  
> > @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
> >  					 u8 chip_select)
> >  {
> >  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
> > -	u32 config = 0;
> > +	u32 config;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
> > +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
> > +	 * .prepare().
> > +	 */
> > +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;  
> 
> This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
> hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
> but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
> issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
> between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
> the kernel buffer?

Like Pratyush said, I don't see why you need to expose new
prepare/unprepare steps. Looks like something entirely controller
specific.

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Boris Brezillon]

On Tue, 26 May 2020 11:27:52 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 May 2020 21:44:36 +0530
> Pratyush Yadav <me@yadavpratyush.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Yicong,
> > 
> > On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:  
> > > The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> > > problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> > > composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> > > and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> > > kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> > > 
> > > Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> > > protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> > > cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> > > unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> > > method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> > > issue.    
> > 
> > I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
> > performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
> > probably do something like:
> > 
> >   hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
> >   ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
> >   hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
> >   return ret;
> > 
> > What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
> > a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
> > is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
> > would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
> > some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.
> >   
> > > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > > index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
> > >  
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
> > > +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
> > > @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
> > >  	int max_cmd_dword;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> > > +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> > > +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> > > +
> > > +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> > > +
> > > +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > > +
> > > +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > > +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
> > > +		return -EIO;    
> > 
> > IIUC, you are checking if you actually got the lock, and you won't get 
> > the lock if the firmware is using the controller. So, is it a good idea 
> > to give up so easily? Maybe we should do this in a loop at some 
> > intervals, and only error out when we reach a number of failed attempts?
> >   
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> > > +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> > > +
> > > +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
> > > +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
> > >  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
> > >  
> > > @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
> > >  					 u8 chip_select)
> > >  {
> > >  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
> > > -	u32 config = 0;
> > > +	u32 config;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
> > > +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
> > > +	 * .prepare().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> > > +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;    
> > 
> > This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
> > hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
> > but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
> > issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
> > between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
> > the kernel buffer?  
> 
> Like Pratyush said, I don't see why you need to expose new
> prepare/unprepare steps. Looks like something entirely controller
> specific.

Sorry, this comment is misplaced, just like my understanding of the
problem :-).

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Yicong Yang]

Hi Pratyush,

On 2020/5/26 0:14, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> Hi Yicong,
>
> On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
>> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
>> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
>> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
>> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
>> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
>>
>> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
>> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
>> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
>> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
>> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
>> issue.
> I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
> performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
> probably do something like:
>
>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
>   ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
>   return ret;

if doing like this, suppose we perform a sequential operations like below:

lock()->exec_op(cmd1)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd2)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd3)->unlock()
                       ^==========^is unlocked          ^==========^is unlocked

As shown above, we cannot lock the device continuously during the whole operations.
But if we use upper layer method then it looks like

prepare()->exec_op(cmd1)->exec_op(cmd2)->exec_op(cmd3)->unprepare()
        ^locked here                                              ^unlocked here

we can hold the lock during the all 3 operations' execution.


>
> What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
> a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
> is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
> would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
> some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
>>  
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
>> +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
>> @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
>>  	int max_cmd_dword;
>>  };
>>  
>> +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
>> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
>> +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
>> +
>> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
>> +
>> +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +
>> +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
>> +		return -EIO;
> IIUC, you are checking if you actually got the lock, and you won't get 
> the lock if the firmware is using the controller. So, is it a good idea 
> to give up so easily? Maybe we should do this in a loop at some 
> intervals, and only error out when we reach a number of failed attempts?

yes. It do give up so early here. :)


>
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
>> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
>> +
>> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
>> +
>> +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
>> +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +}
>> +
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
>>  
>> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
>>  					 u8 chip_select)
>>  {
>>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
>> -	u32 config = 0;
>> +	u32 config;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
>> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
>> +	 * .prepare().
>> +	 */
>> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
> hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
> but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
> issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
> between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
> the kernel buffer?

It won't unlock the controller if it has been locked in prepare(). It will clear
the other bits in the register other than the lock bit. For single operations, as 
prepare() method is not called, the bit is 0 and it won't change here.

Thanks,
Yicong


>   
>>  	if (op->addr.nbytes)
>>  		config |= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_ADDR_EN_MSK;
>> @@ -248,6 +285,8 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>>  
>>  static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops hisi_sfc_v3xx_mem_ops = {
>>  	.adjust_op_size = hisi_sfc_v3xx_adjust_op_size,
>> +	.prepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare,
>> +	.unprepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare,
>>  	.exec_op = hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op,
>>  };
>>  
> FWIW, the other two patches in the series look good to me given you can 
> justify the need for having the API.
>


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Pratyush Yadav]

On 27/05/20 04:18PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
> Hi Pratyush,
> 
> On 2020/5/26 0:14, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> > Hi Yicong,
> >
> > On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
> >> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> >> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> >> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> >> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> >> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> >>
> >> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> >> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> >> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> >> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> >> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> >> issue.
> > I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
> > performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
> > probably do something like:
> >
> >   hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
> >   ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
> >   hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
> >   return ret;
> 
> if doing like this, suppose we perform a sequential operations like below:
> 
> lock()->exec_op(cmd1)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd2)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd3)->unlock()
>                        ^==========^is unlocked          ^==========^is unlocked
> 
> As shown above, we cannot lock the device continuously during the whole operations.

Correct. My argument is based on the assumption that lock() and unlock() 
are cheap/fast operations. If you spend very little time in lock() and 
unlock(), it doesn't make a big difference if you do all 3 operations in 
one go or one at a time.

In other words, since register write should be pretty fast, locking and 
unlocking should be pretty fast. If we don't spend a lot of time in 
lock() and unlock(), we don't gain a lot of performance by reducing 
those calls.

> But if we use upper layer method then it looks like
> 
> prepare()->exec_op(cmd1)->exec_op(cmd2)->exec_op(cmd3)->unprepare()
>         ^locked here                                              ^unlocked here
> 
> we can hold the lock during the all 3 operations' execution.

If you still think doing all operations in one go is a better idea, I  
like Boris's idea of batching operations and its worth considering.
 
> > What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
> > a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
> > is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
> > would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
> > some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> >> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> >> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
> >>  					 u8 chip_select)
> >>  {
> >>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
> >> -	u32 config = 0;
> >> +	u32 config;
> >> +
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
> >> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
> >> +	 * .prepare().
> >> +	 */
> >> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> >> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> > This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
> > hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
> > but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
> > issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
> > between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
> > the kernel buffer?
> 
> It won't unlock the controller if it has been locked in prepare(). It will clear
> the other bits in the register other than the lock bit. For single operations, as 
> prepare() method is not called, the bit is 0 and it won't change here.

Right. I misread the code. Sorry.

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Yicong Yang]

On 2020/5/27 17:33, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> On 27/05/20 04:18PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
>> Hi Pratyush,
>>
>> On 2020/5/26 0:14, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>>> Hi Yicong,
>>>
>>> On 21/05/20 07:23PM, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
>>>> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
>>>> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
>>>> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
>>>> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
>>>>
>>>> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
>>>> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
>>>> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
>>>> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
>>>> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
>>>> issue.
>>> I'm trying to understand the need for this change. What's wrong with
>>> performing the lock/unlock procedure in hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op()? You can 
>>> probably do something like:
>>>
>>>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_lock();
>>>   ret = hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(host, op, chip_select);
>>>   hisi_sfc_v3xx_unlock();
>>>   return ret;
>> if doing like this, suppose we perform a sequential operations like below:
>>
>> lock()->exec_op(cmd1)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd2)->unlock()->lock()->exec_op(cmd3)->unlock()
>>                        ^==========^is unlocked          ^==========^is unlocked
>>
>> As shown above, we cannot lock the device continuously during the whole operations.
> Correct. My argument is based on the assumption that lock() and unlock() 
> are cheap/fast operations. If you spend very little time in lock() and 
> unlock(), it doesn't make a big difference if you do all 3 operations in 
> one go or one at a time.

okay. we'd better not make such assumption and do what hardware suggests.


>
> In other words, since register write should be pretty fast, locking and 
> unlocking should be pretty fast. If we don't spend a lot of time in 
> lock() and unlock(), we don't gain a lot of performance by reducing 
> those calls.

I know your worries. But it won't reduce the performance as we only do lock
and unlock in the beginning or end. See what have implemented in spi-nor
framework, as for read:

->spi_nor_read()
--->spi_nor_lock_and_prep() // lock the device if necessary
--->spi_nor_read_data() // maybe called several times to read wanted bytes
--->spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep() // unlock the device

we don't call lock/unlock at every spi_nor_read_data(), but just in the beginning
/ending of the whole sequence. And we can do the same thing in
nand framework to avoid performance reduction, if prepare/unprepare is also needed.


>
>> But if we use upper layer method then it looks like
>>
>> prepare()->exec_op(cmd1)->exec_op(cmd2)->exec_op(cmd3)->unprepare()
>>         ^locked here                                              ^unlocked here
>>
>> we can hold the lock during the all 3 operations' execution.
> If you still think doing all operations in one go is a better idea, I  
> like Boris's idea of batching operations and its worth considering.

sure. it do worth discussion and maybe we need more suggestions.


>  
>>> What's the benefit of making upper layers do this? Acquiring the lock is 
>>> a simple register write, so it should be relatively fast. Unless there 
>>> is a lot of contention on the lock between the firmware and kernel, I 
>>> would expect the performance impact to be minimal. Maybe you can run 
>>> some benchmarks and see if there is a real difference.
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>>>> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>>>> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
>>>>  					 u8 chip_select)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
>>>> -	u32 config = 0;
>>>> +	u32 config;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
>>>> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
>>>> +	 * .prepare().
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>>>> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
>>> This will unlock the controller _before_ the driver issues 
>>> hisi_sfc_v3xx_read_databuf(). I'm not very familiar with the hardware, 
>>> but to me it seems like it can lead to a race. What if the firmware 
>>> issues a command that over-writes the databuf (I assume this is shared 
>>> between the two) before the driver gets a chance to copy that data to 
>>> the kernel buffer?
>> It won't unlock the controller if it has been locked in prepare(). It will clear
>> the other bits in the register other than the lock bit. For single operations, as 
>> prepare() method is not called, the bit is 0 and it won't change here.
> Right. I misread the code. Sorry.
>


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Boris Brezillon]

On Thu, 21 May 2020 19:23:51 +0800
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:

> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> 
> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> issue.

Okay, so it looks like what we really need is a way to pass sequences
(multiple operations) that are expected to be issued without
interruptions. I'd prefer extending the spi_mem interface to allow that:

int spi_mem_exec_sequence(struct spi_mem *spimem,
			  unsigned int num_ops,
		  	  const struct spi_mem_op *ops);

struct spi_controller_mem_ops {
	...
	int (*exec_sequence)(struct spi_mem *mem,
			     unsigned int num_ops,
			     const struct spi_mem_op *op);
	...
};

The prepare/unprepare hooks are a bit too vague. Alternatively, we
could add functions to grab/release the controller lock, but I'm not
sure that's what we want since some controllers might be able to address
several devices in parallel, and locking the whole controller at the
spi-nor level would prevent that.

BTW, I don't know all the details about this lock or what this FW is
exactly (where it's running, what's his priority, what kind of
synchronization exists between Linux and the FW, ...), but I'm worried
about potential deadlocks here.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
>  
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
> +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
> @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
>  	int max_cmd_dword;
>  };
>  
> +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
> +
> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> +
> +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +
> +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
> +		return -EIO;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
> +{
> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
> +
> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
> +
> +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
> +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +}
> +
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
>  
> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
>  					 u8 chip_select)
>  {
>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
> -	u32 config = 0;
> +	u32 config;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
> +	 * .prepare().
> +	 */
> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
>  
>  	if (op->addr.nbytes)
>  		config |= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_ADDR_EN_MSK;
> @@ -248,6 +285,8 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>  
>  static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops hisi_sfc_v3xx_mem_ops = {
>  	.adjust_op_size = hisi_sfc_v3xx_adjust_op_size,
> +	.prepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare,
> +	.unprepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare,
>  	.exec_op = hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op,
>  };
>  


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Yicong Yang]

Hi Boris,


On 2020/5/26 17:43, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 19:23:51 +0800
> Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>
>> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
>> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
>> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
>> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
>> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
>>
>> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
>> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
>> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
>> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
>> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
>> issue.
> Okay, so it looks like what we really need is a way to pass sequences
> (multiple operations) that are expected to be issued without
> interruptions. I'd prefer extending the spi_mem interface to allow that:
>
> int spi_mem_exec_sequence(struct spi_mem *spimem,
> 			  unsigned int num_ops,
> 		  	  const struct spi_mem_op *ops);
>
> struct spi_controller_mem_ops {
> 	...
> 	int (*exec_sequence)(struct spi_mem *mem,
> 			     unsigned int num_ops,
> 			     const struct spi_mem_op *op);
> 	...
> };

The prepare/unprepare hooks is just like what spi_nor_controller_ops provides.
Alternatively we can use the interface you suggested, and it'll require
upper layer(spi-nor framework, etc) to pack the operations before call
spi_mem_exec_sequence().


>
> The prepare/unprepare hooks are a bit too vague. Alternatively, we
> could add functions to grab/release the controller lock, but I'm not
> sure that's what we want since some controllers might be able to address
> several devices in parallel, and locking the whole controller at the
> spi-nor level would prevent that.

I suppose the method is optional and device may choose to use it or not
following their own design. And the implementation is rather controller
specific, they may choose to lock the whole controller or only the desired
device to operate. 


>
> BTW, I don't know all the details about this lock or what this FW is
> exactly (where it's running, what's his priority, what kind of
> synchronization exists between Linux and the FW, ...), but I'm worried
> about potential deadlocks here.

For SFC controller, both firmware and the kernel driver will require the
lock before a sequence of operations, and single operations like register
access for spi-nor flash is implemented atomically. Once the lock is held
by firmware/driver, then the controller cannot perform the operations sent
by the other one unless the lock is released.

Thanks,
Yicong


>
>> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> index e3b5725..13c161c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-hisi-sfc-v3xx.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_VERSION (0x1f8)
>>  
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG (0x300)
>> +#define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK BIT(20)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IN_DUAL_OUT (1 << 17)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_DUAL_IO (2 << 17)
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_FULL_DIO (3 << 17)
>> @@ -41,6 +42,34 @@ struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host {
>>  	int max_cmd_dword;
>>  };
>>  
>> +int hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
>> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
>> +	u32 reg = HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
>> +
>> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
>> +
>> +	writel(reg, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +
>> +	reg = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +	if (!(reg & HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK))
>> +		return -EIO;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare(struct spi_mem *mem)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_device *spi = mem->spi;
>> +	struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host;
>> +
>> +	host = spi_controller_get_devdata(spi->master);
>> +
>> +	/* Release the lock and clear the command register. */
>> +	writel(0, host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +}
>> +
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_TIMEOUT_US		1000000
>>  #define HISI_SFC_V3XX_WAIT_POLL_INTERVAL_US	10
>>  
>> @@ -163,7 +192,15 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_generic_exec_op(struct hisi_sfc_v3xx_host *host,
>>  					 u8 chip_select)
>>  {
>>  	int ret, len = op->data.nbytes;
>> -	u32 config = 0;
>> +	u32 config;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The lock bit is in the command register. Clear the command
>> +	 * field with lock bit held if it has been set in
>> +	 * .prepare().
>> +	 */
>> +	config = readl(host->regbase + HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG);
>> +	config &= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_LOCK;
>>  
>>  	if (op->addr.nbytes)
>>  		config |= HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG_ADDR_EN_MSK;
>> @@ -248,6 +285,8 @@ static int hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>>  
>>  static const struct spi_controller_mem_ops hisi_sfc_v3xx_mem_ops = {
>>  	.adjust_op_size = hisi_sfc_v3xx_adjust_op_size,
>> +	.prepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_prepare,
>> +	.unprepare	= hisi_sfc_v3xx_op_unprepare,
>>  	.exec_op = hisi_sfc_v3xx_exec_op,
>>  };
>>  
> .
>


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Boris Brezillon]

On Wed, 27 May 2020 16:55:00 +0800
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> 
> On 2020/5/26 17:43, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2020 19:23:51 +0800
> > Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
> >> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
> >> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
> >> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
> >> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
> >>
> >> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
> >> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
> >> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
> >> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
> >> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
> >> issue.  
> > Okay, so it looks like what we really need is a way to pass sequences
> > (multiple operations) that are expected to be issued without
> > interruptions. I'd prefer extending the spi_mem interface to allow that:
> >
> > int spi_mem_exec_sequence(struct spi_mem *spimem,
> > 			  unsigned int num_ops,
> > 		  	  const struct spi_mem_op *ops);
> >
> > struct spi_controller_mem_ops {
> > 	...
> > 	int (*exec_sequence)(struct spi_mem *mem,
> > 			     unsigned int num_ops,
> > 			     const struct spi_mem_op *op);
> > 	...
> > };  
> 
> The prepare/unprepare hooks is just like what spi_nor_controller_ops provides.
> Alternatively we can use the interface you suggested, and it'll require
> upper layer(spi-nor framework, etc) to pack the operations before call
> spi_mem_exec_sequence().

We have to patch the upper layers anyway, right?

> 
> 
> >
> > The prepare/unprepare hooks are a bit too vague. Alternatively, we
> > could add functions to grab/release the controller lock, but I'm not
> > sure that's what we want since some controllers might be able to address
> > several devices in parallel, and locking the whole controller at the
> > spi-nor level would prevent that.  
> 
> I suppose the method is optional and device may choose to use it or not
> following their own design. And the implementation is rather controller
> specific, they may choose to lock the whole controller or only the desired
> device to operate. 

Yes, this is what I'm complaining about. How can the upper layer know
when it should call prepare/unprepare? Let's take the SPI NAND case,
should we prepare before loading a page in the cache and unprepare
after we're done reading the page, or should we unprepare just after
the page has been loaded in the cache? BTW, you've not patched the SPI
NAND layer to call ->prepare/unprepare().

> 
> 
> >
> > BTW, I don't know all the details about this lock or what this FW is
> > exactly (where it's running, what's his priority, what kind of
> > synchronization exists between Linux and the FW, ...), but I'm worried
> > about potential deadlocks here.  
> 
> For SFC controller, both firmware and the kernel driver will require the
> lock before a sequence of operations, and single operations like register
> access for spi-nor flash is implemented atomically. Once the lock is held
> by firmware/driver, then the controller cannot perform the operations sent
> by the other one unless the lock is released.

Yes, that's my point. What prevents the FW from preempting Linux while
it's holding the lock and waiting indefinitely on this lock. Is the FW
running on a separate core? Don't you have other IPs with the same kind
of locks leading to issues if locks are not taken/released in the same
order? ...

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] spi: hisi-sfc-v3xx: Add prepare/unprepare methods to avoid race condition

[Yicong Yang]

On 2020/5/27 17:20, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2020 16:55:00 +0800
> Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>>
>> On 2020/5/26 17:43, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 May 2020 19:23:51 +0800
>>> Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> The controller can be shared with the firmware, which may cause race
>>>> problems. As most read/write/erase/lock/unlock of spi-nor flash are
>>>> composed of a set of operations, while the firmware may use the controller
>>>> and start its own operation in the middle of the process started by the
>>>> kernel driver, which may lead to the kernel driver's function broken.
>>>>
>>>> Bit[20] in HISI_SFC_V3XX_CMD_CFG register plays a role of a lock, to
>>>> protect the controller from firmware access, which means the firmware
>>>> cannot reach the controller if the driver set the bit. Add prepare/
>>>> unprepare methods for the controller, we'll hold the lock in prepare
>>>> method and release it in unprepare method, which will solve the race
>>>> issue.  
>>> Okay, so it looks like what we really need is a way to pass sequences
>>> (multiple operations) that are expected to be issued without
>>> interruptions. I'd prefer extending the spi_mem interface to allow that:
>>>
>>> int spi_mem_exec_sequence(struct spi_mem *spimem,
>>> 			  unsigned int num_ops,
>>> 		  	  const struct spi_mem_op *ops);
>>>
>>> struct spi_controller_mem_ops {
>>> 	...
>>> 	int (*exec_sequence)(struct spi_mem *mem,
>>> 			     unsigned int num_ops,
>>> 			     const struct spi_mem_op *op);
>>> 	...
>>> };  
>> The prepare/unprepare hooks is just like what spi_nor_controller_ops provides.
>> Alternatively we can use the interface you suggested, and it'll require
>> upper layer(spi-nor framework, etc) to pack the operations before call
>> spi_mem_exec_sequence().
> We have to patch the upper layers anyway, right?

sure.

>>> The prepare/unprepare hooks are a bit too vague. Alternatively, we
>>> could add functions to grab/release the controller lock, but I'm not
>>> sure that's what we want since some controllers might be able to address
>>> several devices in parallel, and locking the whole controller at the
>>> spi-nor level would prevent that.  
>> I suppose the method is optional and device may choose to use it or not
>> following their own design. And the implementation is rather controller
>> specific, they may choose to lock the whole controller or only the desired
>> device to operate. 
> Yes, this is what I'm complaining about. How can the upper layer know
> when it should call prepare/unprepare? Let's take the SPI NAND case,
> should we prepare before loading a page in the cache and unprepare
> after we're done reading the page, or should we unprepare just after
> the page has been loaded in the cache? BTW, you've not patched the SPI
> NAND layer to call ->prepare/unprepare().

It's already implemented in spi-nor framework. As for sequential operations,
taking read as an example, the call stack looks like:

->spi_nor_read()
---->spi_nor_lock_and_prep()
------->spi_nor_controller_ops->prepare() or spi_mem_prepare() in PATCH 1/3
...
---->spi_nor_read_data() // maybe called several times
...
---->spi_nor_unlock_and_unprep()
------->spi_nor_controller_ops->unprepare() or spi_mem_unprepare() in PATCH 1/3

As for nand flash, I didn't add it in this RFC as I'm not certain where
should prepare/unprepare be called.

If we use spi_mem_exec_sequence() seems we'll do more works to adapt, at least
at spi-nor side. what do you think?


>
>>
>>> BTW, I don't know all the details about this lock or what this FW is
>>> exactly (where it's running, what's his priority, what kind of
>>> synchronization exists between Linux and the FW, ...), but I'm worried
>>> about potential deadlocks here.  
>> For SFC controller, both firmware and the kernel driver will require the
>> lock before a sequence of operations, and single operations like register
>> access for spi-nor flash is implemented atomically. Once the lock is held
>> by firmware/driver, then the controller cannot perform the operations sent
>> by the other one unless the lock is released.
> Yes, that's my point. What prevents the FW from preempting Linux while
> it's holding the lock and waiting indefinitely on this lock. Is the FW
> running on a separate core? Don't you have other IPs with the same kind
> of locks leading to issues if locks are not taken/released in the same
> order? ...

The firmware is running on a separate co-processor so it may not preempt
the linux.

Thanks,
Yicong


> .
>


______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/