| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a97f1fab-3b6c-7057-4210-1f3a4bc7e362@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:42:18 -0800
From: sathya <sathyaosid@...il.com>
To: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com
Cc: a.zummo@...ertech.it, x86@...nel.org, wim@...ana.be,
mingo@...hat.com, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com,
qipeng.zha@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, dvhart@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, lee.jones@...aro.org, andy@...radead.org,
souvik.k.chakravarty@...el.com, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v8 2/7] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use MFD framework to
create dependent devices
Hi Heikki,
Thanks for the review.
On 11/23/2017 03:49 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 02:49:55AM -0700, sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Currently, we have lot of repetitive code in dependent device resource
>> allocation and device creation handling code. This logic can be improved if
>> we use MFD framework for dependent device creation. This patch adds this
>> support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c | 398 ++++++++++++-----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 259 deletions(-)
>>
>> Changes since v7:
>> * Fixed style issues.
>>
>> Changes since v6:
>> * Fixed style issues.
>> * Used Andy's modified version.
>>
>> Changes since v5:
>> * Changed the order of patches in this patchlist.
>>
>> Changes since v4:
>> * Changed the order of patches in this patchlist.
>>
>> Changes since v3:
>> * Changed PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE in mfd device creation.
>> * Fixed error in resource initalization logic in ipc_create_punit_device.
>> * Removed mfd cell id initialization.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>> index e03fa314..e36144c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>> #include <linux/errno.h>
>> #include <linux/init.h>
>> #include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
>> #include <linux/pm.h>
>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> @@ -88,6 +89,7 @@
>> #define PLAT_RESOURCE_ISP_IFACE_INDEX 5
>> #define PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_DATA_INDEX 6
>> #define PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_IFACE_INDEX 7
>> +#define PLAT_RESOURCE_MEM_MAX_INDEX 8
>> #define PLAT_RESOURCE_ACPI_IO_INDEX 0
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -106,8 +108,6 @@
>> #define TELEM_SSRAM_SIZE 240
>> #define TELEM_PMC_SSRAM_OFFSET 0x1B00
>> #define TELEM_PUNIT_SSRAM_OFFSET 0x1A00
>> -#define TCO_PMC_OFFSET 0x8
>> -#define TCO_PMC_SIZE 0x4
>>
>> /* PMC register bit definitions */
>>
>> @@ -124,26 +124,10 @@ static struct intel_pmc_ipc_dev {
>> int cmd;
>> struct completion cmd_complete;
>>
>> - /* The following PMC BARs share the same ACPI device with the IPC */
>> - resource_size_t acpi_io_base;
>> - int acpi_io_size;
>> - struct platform_device *tco_dev;
>> -
>> /* gcr */
>> void __iomem *gcr_mem_base;
>> bool has_gcr_regs;
>> spinlock_t gcr_lock;
>> -
>> - /* punit */
>> - struct platform_device *punit_dev;
>> -
>> - /* Telemetry */
>> - resource_size_t telem_pmc_ssram_base;
>> - resource_size_t telem_punit_ssram_base;
>> - int telem_pmc_ssram_size;
>> - int telem_punit_ssram_size;
>> - u8 telem_res_inval;
>> - struct platform_device *telemetry_dev;
>> } ipcdev;
>>
>> static char *ipc_err_sources[] = {
>> @@ -508,7 +492,7 @@ static int ipc_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
>> ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, pdev->irq, ioc, 0, "intel_pmc_ipc",
>> pmc);
>> if (ret) {
>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request irq\n");
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to request IRQ\n");
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -593,44 +577,6 @@ static const struct attribute_group intel_ipc_group = {
>> .attrs = intel_ipc_attrs,
>> };
>>
>> -static struct resource punit_res_array[] = {
>> - /* Punit BIOS */
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - /* Punit ISP */
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - /* Punit GTD */
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> -};
>> -
>> -#define TCO_RESOURCE_ACPI_IO 0
>> -#define TCO_RESOURCE_SMI_EN_IO 1
>> -#define TCO_RESOURCE_GCR_MEM 2
>> -static struct resource tco_res[] = {
>> - /* ACPI - TCO */
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_IO,
>> - },
>> - /* ACPI - SMI */
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_IO,
>> - },
>> -};
>> -
>> static struct itco_wdt_platform_data tco_info = {
>> .name = "Apollo Lake SoC",
>> .version = 5,
>> @@ -638,234 +584,177 @@ static struct itco_wdt_platform_data tco_info = {
>> .update_no_reboot_bit = update_no_reboot_bit,
>> };
>>
>> -#define TELEMETRY_RESOURCE_PUNIT_SSRAM 0
>> -#define TELEMETRY_RESOURCE_PMC_SSRAM 1
>> -static struct resource telemetry_res[] = {
>> - /*Telemetry*/
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> - {
>> - .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> - },
>> -};
>> -
>> -static int ipc_create_punit_device(void)
>> +static int ipc_create_punit_device(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct platform_device *pdev;
>> - const struct platform_device_info pdevinfo = {
>> - .parent = ipcdev.dev,
>> - .name = PUNIT_DEVICE_NAME,
>> - .id = -1,
>> - .res = punit_res_array,
>> - .num_res = ARRAY_SIZE(punit_res_array),
>> + struct resource punit_res[PLAT_RESOURCE_MEM_MAX_INDEX];
>> + struct mfd_cell punit_cell;
>> + struct resource *res;
> That's where you have the bug I reported earlier. You would need to
> introduce those structures as static struct..
May be I missed the bug message. Can you please send me the link?
>
> But instead of fixing those, drop them and introduce the resources and
> the cells out side of these functions:
>
> static struct resource punit_resources[PLAT_RESOURCE_MEM_MAX_INDEX];
> static struct resource telemetry_resources[2];
> static struct resource wdt_resources[2];
>
> static struct mfd_cell pmc_cell[] = {
> {
> .name = "intel_punit_ipc",
> .resources = punit_resources,
> .num_resources = PLAT_RESOURCE_MEM_MAX_INDEX,
> .ignore_resource_conflicts = true,
> },
> {
> .name = "intel_telemetry",
> .resources = telemetry_resources,
> .num_resources = 2,
> .ignore_resource_conflicts = true,
> },
> {
> .name = "iTCO_wdt",
> .resources = wdt_resources,
> .num_resources = 2,
> .ignore_resource_conflicts = true,
> .platform_data = &tco_info,
> .pdata_size = sizeof(tco_info),
> },
> };
>
> Note that I'm not using the definitions for the name strings on
> purpose. Please get rid of those definitions while at it.
>
> Use these functions - ipc_create_punit/wdt/telemetry_device() - to just
> collect the resources. Then you call devm_mfd_add_devices() only ones
There are certain cases where we should skip device enumeration for some of
these devices. For example,
1. If we get any issues when extracting the resource information.
2. In case of itco_wdt, we should skip device creation if acpi driver
handles the watchdog.
So using single array and creating all these devices in one shot is not
feasible. Please let me
know if I missed anything.
> in ipc_create_pmc_devices(). That should make this driver a bit more
> easier to read and understand..
>
>> + int mindex, pindex = 0;
>> +
>> + for (mindex = 0; mindex <= PLAT_RESOURCE_MEM_MAX_INDEX; mindex++) {
>> +
>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, mindex);
>> +
>> + switch (mindex) {
>> + /* Get PUNIT resources */
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_BIOS_DATA_INDEX:
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_BIOS_IFACE_INDEX:
>> + /* BIOS resources are required, so return error if not
>> + * available
>> + */
>> + if (!res) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev,
>> + "Failed to get PUNIT MEM resource %d\n",
>> + pindex);
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_ISP_DATA_INDEX:
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_ISP_IFACE_INDEX:
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_DATA_INDEX:
>> + case PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_IFACE_INDEX:
>> + /* if valid resource found, copy the resource to PUNIT
>> + * resource
>> + */
>> + if (res)
>> + memcpy(&punit_res[pindex], res, sizeof(*res));
>> + punit_res[pindex].flags = IORESOURCE_MEM;
>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "PUNIT memory res: %pR\n",
>> + &punit_res[pindex]);
> I don't see how is that useful information?
ISP and GTD related resources are optional. So I added a debug message
to know the details if
these resources exist.
>
>> + pindex++;
>> + break;
>> };
>> + }
>>
>> - pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
>> - if (IS_ERR(pdev))
>> - return PTR_ERR(pdev);
>> -
>> - ipcdev.punit_dev = pdev;
>> + /* Create PUNIT IPC MFD cell */
>> + punit_cell.name = PUNIT_DEVICE_NAME;
>> + punit_cell.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(punit_res);
>> + punit_cell.resources = punit_res;
>> + punit_cell.ignore_resource_conflicts = 1;
>>
>> - return 0;
>> + return devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
>> + &punit_cell, 1, NULL, 0, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> -static int ipc_create_tco_device(void)
>> +static int ipc_create_wdt_device(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct platform_device *pdev;
>> + static struct resource wdt_ipc_res[2];
>> struct resource *res;
>> - const struct platform_device_info pdevinfo = {
>> - .parent = ipcdev.dev,
>> - .name = TCO_DEVICE_NAME,
>> - .id = -1,
>> - .res = tco_res,
>> - .num_res = ARRAY_SIZE(tco_res),
>> - .data = &tco_info,
>> - .size_data = sizeof(tco_info),
>> - };
>> + static struct mfd_cell wdt_cell;
>>
>> - res = tco_res + TCO_RESOURCE_ACPI_IO;
>> - res->start = ipcdev.acpi_io_base + TCO_BASE_OFFSET;
>> - res->end = res->start + TCO_REGS_SIZE - 1;
>> + /* If we have ACPI based watchdog use that instead, othewise create
>> + * a MFD cell for iTCO watchdog
>> + */
>> + if (acpi_has_watchdog())
>> + return 0;
>>
>> - res = tco_res + TCO_RESOURCE_SMI_EN_IO;
>> - res->start = ipcdev.acpi_io_base + SMI_EN_OFFSET;
>> - res->end = res->start + SMI_EN_SIZE - 1;
>> + /* Get iTCO watchdog resources */
>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IO,
>> + PLAT_RESOURCE_ACPI_IO_INDEX);
>> + if (!res) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get WDT resource\n");
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>>
>> - pdev = platform_device_register_full(&pdevinfo);
>> - if (IS_ERR(pdev))
>> - return PTR_ERR(pdev);
>> + wdt_ipc_res[0].start = res->start + TCO_BASE_OFFSET;
>> + wdt_ipc_res[0].end = res->start +
>> + TCO_BASE_OFFSET + TCO_REGS_SIZE - 1;
>> + wdt_ipc_res[0].flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
>> + wdt_ipc_res[1].start = res->start + SMI_EN_OFFSET;
>> + wdt_ipc_res[1].end = res->start +
>> + SMI_EN_OFFSET + SMI_EN_SIZE - 1;
>> + wdt_ipc_res[1].flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
>>
>> - ipcdev.tco_dev = pdev;
>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "watchdog res 0: %pR\n", &wdt_ipc_res[0]);
>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "watchdog res 1: %pR\n", &wdt_ipc_res[1]);
> That definitely is not useful information. Please drop all dev_dbg
> calls from these patches.
I can remove them.
>
>> - return 0;
>> + wdt_cell.name = TCO_DEVICE_NAME;
>> + wdt_cell.platform_data = &tco_info;
>> + wdt_cell.pdata_size = sizeof(tco_info);
>> + wdt_cell.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(wdt_ipc_res);
>> + wdt_cell.resources = wdt_ipc_res;
>> + wdt_cell.ignore_resource_conflicts = 1;
>> +
>> + return devm_mfd_add_devices(&pdev->dev, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
>> + &wdt_cell, 1, NULL, 0, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> -static int ipc_create_telemetry_device(void)
>> +static int ipc_create_telemetry_device(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct platform_device *pdev;
>> + struct resource telemetry_ipc_res[2];
>> + struct mfd_cell telemetry_cell;
> This is also broken. I'm attaching a diff with the changes to this
> patch I used when I tested this on my Broxton board.
Thanks let me go over it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists