linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: Add documents for PECI hwmon client drivers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLcxEnCOywTtU14G4=6A5m6G=KH3oi8m1VxKSEdxuv-ww@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:32:36 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Haiyue Wang <haiyue.wang@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Feist <james.feist@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jason M Biils <jason.m.bills@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
        Julia Cartwright <juliac@....teric.us>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Milton Miller II <miltonm@...ibm.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stef van Os <stef.van.os@...drive-technologies.com>,
        Sumeet R Pawnikar <sumeet.r.pawnikar@...el.com>,
        Vernon Mauery <vernon.mauery@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux HWMON List <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: Add documents for
 PECI hwmon client drivers

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo
<jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 4/16/2018 4:51 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>
>> On 4/16/2018 4:22 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2018 11:14 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:32:09AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit adds dt-bindings documents for PECI cputemp and dimmtemp
>>>>> client
>>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> +Example:
>>>>> +    peci-bus@0 {
>>>>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>> +        < more properties >
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        peci-dimmtemp@...0 {
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> unit-address is wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will fix it using the reg value.
>>>
>>>> It is a different bus from cputemp? Otherwise, you have conflicting
>>>> addresses. If that's the case, probably should make it clear by showing
>>>> different host adapters for each example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It could be the same bus with cputemp. Also, client address sharing is
>>> possible by PECI core if the functionality is different. I mean, cputemp and
>>> dimmtemp targeting the same client is possible case like this.
>>> peci-cputemp@30
>>> peci-dimmtemp@30
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I got your point. Probably, I should change these separate settings
>> into one like
>>
>> peci-client@30 {
>>      compatible = "intel,peci-client";
>>      reg = <0x30>;
>> };
>>
>> Then cputemp and dimmtemp drivers could refer the same compatible string.
>> Will rewrite it.
>>
>
> I've checked it again and realized that it should use function based node
> name like:
>
> peci-cputemp@30
> peci-dimmtemp@30
>
> If it use the same string like 'peci-client@30', the drivers cannot be
> selectively enabled. The client address sharing way is well handled in PECI
> core and this way would be better for the future implementations of other
> PECI functional drivers such as crash dump driver and so on. So I'm going
> change the unit-address only.

2 nodes at the same address is wrong (and soon dtc will warn you on
this). You have 2 potential options. The first is you need additional
address information in the DT if these are in fact 2 independent
devices. This could be something like a function number to use
something from PCI addressing. From what I found on PECI, it doesn't
seem to have anything like that. The 2nd option is you have a single
DT node which registers multiple hwmon devices. DT nodes and drivers
don't have to be 1-1. Don't design your DT nodes from how you want to
partition drivers in some OS.

Rob