On 7/2/20 1:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 01:48:36PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 08:01:55AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:05:49PM +0100, Anthony PERARD wrote:
>>>> The ACPI spec state that "Accesses to PM1 control registers are
>>>> accessed through byte and word accesses." (In section 4.7.3.2.1 PM1
>>>> Control Registers of my old spec copy rev 4.0a).
>>>>
>>>> With commit 5d971f9e6725 ("memory: Revert "memory: accept mismatching
>>>> sizes in memory_region_access_valid""), it wasn't possible anymore to
>>>> access the pm1_cnt register by reading a single byte, and that is use
>>>> by at least a Xen firmware called "hvmloader".
>>>>
>>>> Also, take care of the PM1 Status Registers which also have "Accesses
>>>> to the PM1 status registers are done through byte or word accesses"
>>>> (In section 4.7.3.1.1 PM1 Status Registers).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't we set impl.min_access_size to convert byte accesses
>>> to word accesses?
>>
>> I actually tried, but when reading `addr` or `addr+1` I had the same
>> value. So I guess `addr` wasn't taken into account.
>>
>> I've checked again, with `.impl.min_access_size = 2`, the width that the
>> function acpi_pm_cnt_read() get is 2, but addr isn't changed so the
>> function is still supposed to shift the result (or the value to write)
>> based on addr, I guess.
>
> True address is misaligned. I think memory core should just align it -
> this is what devices seem to expect.
> However result is shifted properly so just align addr and be done with
> it.
>
>
> In fact I have a couple more questions. Paolo - maybe you can answer some of
> these?
>
>
>
> if (!access_size_min) {
> access_size_min = 1;
> }
> if (!access_size_max) {
> access_size_max = 4;
> }
>
>>>>>
>
> So 8 byte accesses are split up unless one requests 8 bytes.
> Undocumented right? Why are we doing this?
>
>>>>>
>
>
> /* FIXME: support unaligned access? */
>
>>>>>
>
> Shouldn't we document impl.unaligned is ignored right now?
> Shouldn't we do something to make sure callbacks do not get
> unaligned accesses they don't expect?
>
>
> In fact, there are just 2 devices which set valid.unaligned but
> not impl.unaligned:
> aspeed_smc_ops
> raven_io_ops
>
>
> Is this intentional?
I think it is a leftover from the initial implementation. The model works fine
without valid.unaligned being set and with your patch.
C.
> Do these in fact expect memory core to
> provide aligned addresses to the callbacks?
> Given impl.unaligned is not implemented, can we drop it completely?
> Cc a bunch of people who might know.
>
> Can relevant maintainers please comment? Thanks a lot!
>
>>>>>
>
>
> access_size = MAX(MIN(size, access_size_max), access_size_min);
> access_mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(0, access_size * 8);
>
>>>>>
>
>
> So with a 1 byte access at address 1, with impl.min_access_size = 2, we get:
> access_size = 2
> access_mask = 0xffff
> addr = 1
>
>
>
> <<<<
>
>
> if (memory_region_big_endian(mr)) {
> for (i = 0; i < size; i += access_size) {
> r |= access_fn(mr, addr + i, value, access_size,
> (size - access_size - i) * 8, access_mask, attrs);
>
>>>>
>
> now shift is -8.
>
> <<<<
>
>
> }
> } else {
> for (i = 0; i < size; i += access_size) {
> r |= access_fn(mr, addr + i, value, access_size, i * 8,
> access_mask, attrs);
> }
> }
>
>
> <<<<
>
> callback is invoked with addr 1 and size 2:
>
>>>>>
>
>
> uint64_t tmp;
>
> tmp = mr->ops->read(mr->opaque, addr, size);
> if (mr->subpage) {
> trace_memory_region_subpage_read(get_cpu_index(), mr, addr, tmp,
> size);
> } else if (trace_event_get_state_backends(TRACE_MEMORY_REGION_OPS_READ)) {
> hwaddr abs_addr = memory_region_to_absolute_addr(mr, addr);
> trace_memory_region_ops_read(get_cpu_index(), mr, abs_addr, tmp,
> size);
> }
> memory_region_shift_read_access(value, shift, mask, tmp);
> return MEMTX_OK;
>
> <<<<
>
> let's assume callback returned 0xabcd
>
> this is where we are shifting the return value:
>
>>>>>
>
>
> static inline void memory_region_shift_read_access(uint64_t *value,
> signed shift,
> uint64_t mask,
> uint64_t tmp)
> {
> if (shift >= 0) {
> *value |= (tmp & mask) << shift;
> } else {
> *value |= (tmp & mask) >> -shift;
> }
> }
>
>
> So we do 0xabcd & 0xffff >> 8, and we get 0xab.
>
>>>>
>
> How about aligning address for now? Paolo?
>
> -->
>
> memory: align to min access size
>
> If impl.min_access_size > valid.min_access_size access callbacks
> can get a misaligned access as size is increased.
> They don't expect that, let's fix it in the memory core.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
>
> ---
>
>
> diff --git a/memory.c b/memory.c
> index 9200b20130..ea489ce405 100644
> --- a/memory.c
> +++ b/memory.c
> @@ -532,6 +532,7 @@ static MemTxResult access_with_adjusted_size(hwaddr addr,
> }
>
> /* FIXME: support unaligned access? */
> + addr &= ~(access_size_min - 1);
> access_size = MAX(MIN(size, access_size_max), access_size_min);
> access_mask = MAKE_64BIT_MASK(0, access_size * 8);
> if (memory_region_big_endian(mr)) {
>> --
>> Anthony PERARD
>
