Re: [PATCH V3 3/5] misc/pvpanic: add MMIO support

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:54 PM <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:22 AM Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn> wrote:
> >>
> >> On some architectures (e.g. arm64), it's preferable to use MMIO, since
> >> this can be used standalone. Add MMIO support to the pvpanic driver.
> >
> >>  pvpanic_walk_resources(struct acpi_resource *res, void *context)
> >>  {
> >> +       struct acpi_resource_fixed_memory32 *fixmem32;
> >> +
> >>         switch (res->type) {
> >>         case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_END_TAG:
> >>                 return AE_OK;
> >>
> >>         case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IO:
> >> -               port = res->data.io.minimum;
> >> +               base = (void __iomem *) ioport_map(res->data.io.minimum, 1);
> >> +               return AE_OK;
> >> +
> >> +       case ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_FIXED_MEMORY32:
> >> +               fixmem32 = &res->data.fixed_memory32;
> >> +               base = ioremap(fixmem32->address, fixmem32->address_length);
> >>                 return AE_OK;
> >
> >Ouch. Sorry, I forgot to look at this previously.
> >
> >This should be converted to use
> >acpi_dev_resource_io()
> >acpi_dev_resource_memory()
> >
> another question, here:
> iounmap(base) and base may be a ioport. I read x86 code for iounmap that  checked the base.
> so I think it is safe for x86. But I'm not sure if other architectures using ioport are also secure
> in the same way of processing.
> Do you have any suggestions?

I would consider it as a bug if on some architectures iounmap() is not
able to take a base got from ioport_map().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko