Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 11:38:54 +0100
From:	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
To:	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Cc:	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
	Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@...com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
	Nobuhiro Iwamatsu <iwamatsu@...auri.org>,
	Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] thermal:core:fix: Check return code of the
 ->get_max_state() callback

Hi Eduardo,

> 
> Lukasz,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:16:30AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > The return code from ->get_max_state() callback was not checked
> > during binding cooling device to thermal zone device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
> > ---
> > Changes for v2:
> > - It turned out that patches from 1 to 6 from v1 are not needed,
> > since they either already solve the problem (like imx_thermal.c) or
> > not use cpufreq as a thermal cooling device.
> > - The patch 7 from v1 is also not needed since this patch on error
> > exits this function without using max_state variable.
> > - In thermal driver probe the cpufreq_cooling_register() method
> > presence is crucial to evaluate if the thermal driver needs any
> > actions with -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
> Have you tried this patch with of-thermal based systems?

Yes. I did try it with Exynos (after the rework). And there weren't
any regressions.

To be precise - do you refer to of_cpufreq_cooling_register() [1] or
cpufreq_cooling_register() [2]?

For the latter [2] - drivers like imx_thermal.c are fully prepared for
-EDEFER_PROBE.

For the former [1] - only cpufreq-dt.c uses it (and Exynos SoC after
the rework).

> 
> The above proposal works if the thermal driver is dealing with loading
> cpu_cooling. But for of-thermal based drivers, the idea is to leave to
> cpufreq code to load it. 

I assume, that you mean case [1]?

> 
> As an example, I am taking the ti-soc-thermal, but we already have
> other of-thermal based drivers. Booting with this patch ti-soc-thermal
> (of-based boot) loads fine, but the cpu_cooling never gets bound to
> the thermal zone.

Could you share the exact SoC/board/_defconfig setup to reproduce this
behavior? I possess Beagle Bone Black, but it doesn't have thermal
support (perhaps because its lack of accuracy).

With my Exynos setup I didn't experience any problems with this patch.

> 
> The thing is that the bind may happen before cpufreq-dt code loads the
> cpufreq driver, and when cpu_cooling is checking what is the max freq,
> by using cpufreq table, it won't be able to do it, as there is no
> table.

As I look into the cpufreq-dt.c driver - in the cpufreq_init()
function, the call to of_cpufreq_cooling_register() is performed just
before cpufreq_table_validate_and_show().
It looks like a mistake in the cpufreq-dt.c code.

> 
> While, without the patch, it will use wrong in the binding, but after
> it gets bound, and cpufreq loads, the max will be used correctly.

Correct. Such _wrong_ behavior was the original motivation to prepare
this patch.

> 
> And in this case, the system still works besides this bug. 

Unfortunately there is also a "window" in which the driver is not
properly configured and can cause system crash, although it is unlikely.


> The
> reasoning is because the max state comes from DT (2) and lower and
> upper wont be equal to THERMAL_NO_LIMIT. Then, the following check
> will use the parameter, instead of max_state:
> 
>         cdev->ops->get_max_state(cdev, &max_state);
> 
> 	/* lower default 0, upper default max_state */
> 	lower = lower == THERMAL_NO_LIMIT ? 0 : lower;
> 	upper = upper == THERMAL_NO_LIMIT ?
> 				max_state : upper;
> 
> In summary, introducing this patch, although it fix a problem, will
> introduce regressions, in of-thermal based drivers.

To be more precise - it will affect systems, which use of-thermal.c and
cpufreq-dt.c in the same time, due to wrong ordering in the latter file.

Could you give me a hint about the exact affected system? I've grep'ed
for CPUFREQ_DT in the ./arch/arm/configs with no success.

> 
> I believe, to have this fix, you need to provide a way to have probing
> deferring also in cpu_cooling. That needs also the change in the
> cpufreq driver, as I mentioned in the other thread.

I will think about possible solution and refer to previous discussion. 

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 6 ++++--
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c index 43b9070..8567929 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> > @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ int thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device(struct
> > thermal_zone_device *tz, struct thermal_zone_device *pos1;
> >  	struct thermal_cooling_device *pos2;
> >  	unsigned long max_state;
> > -	int result;
> > +	int result, ret;
> >  
> >  	if (trip >= tz->trips || (trip < 0 && trip !=
> > THERMAL_TRIPS_NONE)) return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -945,7 +945,9 @@ int thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device(struct
> > thermal_zone_device *tz, if (tz != pos1 || cdev != pos2)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	cdev->ops->get_max_state(cdev, &max_state);
> > +	ret = cdev->ops->get_max_state(cdev, &max_state);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> >  
> >  	/* lower default 0, upper default max_state */
> >  	lower = lower == THERMAL_NO_LIMIT ? 0 : lower;
> > -- 
> > 2.0.0.rc2
> > 


-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists