Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_tis_spi: Use DMA-safe memory for SPI transfers

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:26:52PM +0200, Alexander Steffen wrote:
> The buffers used as tx_buf/rx_buf in a SPI transfer need to be DMA-safe.
> This cannot be guaranteed for the buffers passed to tpm_tis_spi_read_bytes
> and tpm_tis_spi_write_bytes. Therefore, we need to use our own DMA-safe
> buffer and copy the data to/from it.
> 
> The buffer needs to be allocated separately, to ensure that it is
> cacheline-aligned and not shared with other data, so that DMA can work
> correctly.
> 
> Fixes: 0edbfea537d1 ("tpm/tpm_tis_spi: Add support for spi phy")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> - Updated commit message with more explanations.
> v3:
> - Split into two patches, one for making the buffers DMA-safe and another
>   for using only a single buffer.
> v4:
> - Back to one patch, to fix conflicts with new const buffers.
> 
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
> index e49f5b9..8ab0bd8 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_spi.c
> @@ -46,9 +46,7 @@
>  struct tpm_tis_spi_phy {
>  	struct tpm_tis_data priv;
>  	struct spi_device *spi_device;
> -
> -	u8 tx_buf[4];
> -	u8 rx_buf[4];
> +	u8 *iobuf;
>  };
>  
>  static inline struct tpm_tis_spi_phy *to_tpm_tis_spi_phy(struct tpm_tis_data *data)
> @@ -71,14 +69,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
>  	while (len) {
>  		transfer_len = min_t(u16, len, MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE);
>  
> -		phy->tx_buf[0] = (in ? 0x80 : 0) | (transfer_len - 1);
> -		phy->tx_buf[1] = 0xd4;
> -		phy->tx_buf[2] = addr >> 8;
> -		phy->tx_buf[3] = addr;
> +		phy->iobuf[0] = (in ? 0x80 : 0) | (transfer_len - 1);
> +		phy->iobuf[1] = 0xd4;
> +		phy->iobuf[2] = addr >> 8;
> +		phy->iobuf[3] = addr;
>  
>  		memset(&spi_xfer, 0, sizeof(spi_xfer));
> -		spi_xfer.tx_buf = phy->tx_buf;
> -		spi_xfer.rx_buf = phy->rx_buf;
> +		spi_xfer.tx_buf = phy->iobuf;
> +		spi_xfer.rx_buf = phy->iobuf;
>  		spi_xfer.len = 4;
>  		spi_xfer.cs_change = 1;
>  
> @@ -88,9 +86,9 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			goto exit;
>  
> -		if ((phy->rx_buf[3] & 0x01) == 0) {
> +		if ((phy->iobuf[3] & 0x01) == 0) {
>  			// handle SPI wait states
> -			phy->tx_buf[0] = 0;
> +			phy->iobuf[0] = 0;
>  
>  			for (i = 0; i < TPM_RETRY; i++) {
>  				spi_xfer.len = 1;
> @@ -99,7 +97,7 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
>  				ret = spi_sync_locked(phy->spi_device, &m);
>  				if (ret < 0)
>  					goto exit;
> -				if (phy->rx_buf[0] & 0x01)
> +				if (phy->iobuf[0] & 0x01)
>  					break;
>  			}
>  
> @@ -112,8 +110,14 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
>  		spi_xfer.cs_change = 0;
>  		spi_xfer.len = transfer_len;
>  		spi_xfer.delay_usecs = 5;
> -		spi_xfer.tx_buf = out;
> -		spi_xfer.rx_buf = in;
> +
> +		if (in) {
> +			spi_xfer.tx_buf = NULL;
> +		} else if (out) {
> +			spi_xfer.rx_buf = NULL;
> +			memcpy(phy->iobuf, out, transfer_len);
> +			out += transfer_len;
> +		}
>  
>  		spi_message_init(&m);
>  		spi_message_add_tail(&spi_xfer, &m);
> @@ -121,11 +125,12 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_transfer(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 len,
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			goto exit;
>  
> -		len -= transfer_len;
> -		if (in)
> +		if (in) {
> +			memcpy(in, phy->iobuf, transfer_len);
>  			in += transfer_len;
> -		if (out)
> -			out += transfer_len;
> +		}
> +
> +		len -= transfer_len;
>  	}
>  
>  exit:
> @@ -191,6 +196,10 @@ static int tpm_tis_spi_probe(struct spi_device *dev)
>  
>  	phy->spi_device = dev;
>  
> +	phy->iobuf = devm_kmalloc(&dev->dev, MAX_SPI_FRAMESIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!phy->iobuf)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
>  	return tpm_tis_core_init(&dev->dev, &phy->priv, -1, &tpm_spi_phy_ops,
>  				 NULL);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

Great, I swapped to this patch in my master branch. I'm not able to
test it before I'm back to Finland from US (next week).

/Jarkko