Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/5] Implement fw_cfg DMA interface

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 08/06/15 23:11, Marc Marí wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:49:12 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> +static void fw_cfg_dma_mem_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr,
>>> +                                 uint64_t value, unsigned size)
>>> +{
>>> +    FWCfgState *s = opaque;
>>> +
>>> +    s->dma_addr = be64_to_cpu(value);
>>> +    fw_cfg_dma_transfer(s);
>>> +}
>>
>> So, this is similar to the ioport size limitation I described at the
>> top. Namely,  I think that an Aarch32 guest won't be able to transfer
>> a 64-bit value with a single MMIO access. (I believe double-width
>> store instructions do exist, but they cannot be virtualized well.
>> They trap, but the instruction syndrome register won't give enough
>> info to the hypervisor.)
>>
>> Therefore, the address of the dma control structure should be passed
>> in two 32-bit wide accesses, both for the ioport mapping and the mmio
>> mapping. This can be done in two ways:
>> - write the two halves to the same register, and use a latch to
>>   identify each 2nd access
>> - use different addresses.
>>
>> The latch sucks, because the guest has no way to bring the register
>> to a known good state. Therefore:
>>
>> In the ioport mapped case, the port range should go up to 0x519, and
>> two outl's are going to be necessary in the guest. The documentation
>> should spell out which outl (@ 0x512 or @ 0x516) will trigger the
>> actual transfer.
>>
>> (I vaguely recall that someone already described this, but I can't
>> find the message!)
> 
> Previous answer to this patch, by Kevin O'Connor:
> 
> "So, I think this code needs to be able to handle a 32bit write to a
> high bits address and then store those bits until the 32bit write to
> the low bits address occurs.  (I'd also recommend that after every dma
> transfer the stored high bits are reset to zero so that the common case
> of a 32bit address can be performed with a single 32bit write to the
> low bits field.)"
> 
> It's easier to do it this way.

Thank you for the pointer. :) I don't remember this answer, at least not
consciously.

But, "this way" is not different from my suggestion. It just has more
details filled in (and therefore it is admittedly a smarter, more
elaborate suggestion than mine).

- I asked for two separate addresses, and Kevin had asked for two
  separate addresses too. (The idea that one half is stored until the
  other half is written was implicit in my suggestion.)

- I requested that the docs spell out which address would trigger the
  dma. Kevin had specifically suggested that the low bits address
  trigger it.

- The clearing of the stored high bits is extra smartness in Kevin's
  suggestion (I'm jealous for not thinking of that :)), but that will
  require more code (one line, probably), which is not "easier". :)

We're in violent agreement.

(If you wanted to poke fun at me, you could say that I just repeated
what Kevin had said, only worse. Thing is, I really don't recall seeing
his message. Let me search my mailbox for a substring from your above
quote... Yep, I don't have that message. My email has been acting up
today. I only have parts of that message *within* one of your emails.
... Which I mostly missed too. Doing too many things at once, sorry.)

Thanks!
Laszlo