Message-ID: <20211126205430.066df521@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 20:54:30 +0100
From:   Henning Schild <henning.schild@...mens.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux LED Subsystem <linux-leds@...r.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        Srikanth Krishnakar <skrishnakar@...il.com>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Gerd Haeussler <gerd.haeussler.ext@...mens.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] leds: simatic-ipc-leds: add new driver for
 Siemens Industial PCs

Am Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:59:54 +0200
schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:44 PM Henning Schild
> <henning.schild@...mens.com> wrote:
> > Am Fri, 26 Nov 2021 16:02:48 +0200
> > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:  
> > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 3:28 PM Henning Schild
> > > <henning.schild@...mens.com> wrote:  
> > > > Am Tue, 30 Mar 2021 14:04:35 +0300
> > > > schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>:  
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:59 PM Henning Schild
> > > > > <henning.schild@...mens.com> wrote:  
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > +static struct simatic_ipc_led simatic_ipc_leds_mem[] = {
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x1A0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x1A8, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-1"},
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x1C8, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x1D0, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-2"},
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x1E0, "red:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > > > > > +       {0x500 + 0x198, "green:" LED_FUNCTION_STATUS "-3"},
> > > > > > +       { }
> > > > > > +};  
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me like poking GPIO controller registers directly.
> > > > > This is not good. The question still remains: Can we simply
> > > > > register a GPIO (pin control) driver and use an LED GPIO
> > > > > driver with an additional board file that instantiates it?  
> > > >
> > > > The short answer for v4 will be "No we can not!". The pinctrl
> > > > drivers do not currently probe on any of the devices and
> > > > attempts to fix that have failed or gut stuck. I tried to help
> > > > out where i could and waited for a long time.  
> > >
> > > I see, unfortunately I have stuck with some other (more important
> > > tasks) and can't fulfil this, but I still consider it's no go for
> > > driver poking pin control registers directly. Lemme see if I can
> > > prioritize this for next week.  
> >
> > I just sent v4. And am sick of waiting on you. Sorry to be that
> > clear here. I want that order changed! If you still end up being
> > fast, perfect. But i want to be faster!  
> 
> It's good that you are honest, honesty is what we missed a lot!

I was always honest, hope that was not missed from my side ... let
alone a lot.

> > > > Now my take is to turn the order around. We go in like that and
> > > > will happily switch to pinctrl if that ever comes up on the
> > > > machines. Meaning P2SB series on top of this, no more delays
> > > > please.  
> > >
> > > I don't want to slip bad code into the kernel where we can avoid
> > > that.  
> >
> > It is not bad code! That is unfair to say. It can be improved on and
> > that is what we have a FIXME line for. The worst code is code that
> > is not there ... devices without drivers!  
> 
> Okay, that's how you interpret the term "bad". Probably I had to use
> something else to explain that it's racy with the very same case if
> one adds an ACPI support to it.

It is only racy when the firmware would change (which i am
unfortunately pretty sure it will not), or if pinctrl would probe
without P2SB or ACPI. (where you say "Not gonna happen.")

Or i could say "fortunately pretty sure" because that means pinctrl
will never probe, hence no race!

> > That is bad, not i minor poke of parts of a resource no other driver
> > claimed!
> >  
> > > > We do use request_region so have a mutex in place. Meaning we
> > > > really only touch GPIO while pinctrl does not!  
> > >
> > > I haven't got this. On Intel SoCs GPIO is a part of pin control
> > > registers. You can't touch GPIO without touching pin control.  
> >
> > i meant pin control, if it ever did probe it would reserve the
> > region and push our hack out, or the other way around ... no
> > conflict! To get both we just need a simple patch and switch to
> > pinctrl, just notify me once your stuff is ready and i will write
> > that patch.  
> 
> While thinking more on it, the quickest solution here is to do a P2SB
> game based on DMI strings in the board code for the platform
> (somewhere under PDx86).

Not sure what you suggest here. p1 does pretty fancy DMI to be really
sure to only match specific devices, and only then we do our own P2SB
base address discover and region reservation.

> > > > I see no issue here, waited for a long time and now expect to be
> > > > allowed to get merged first.  
> > >
> > > Okay, I have these questions / asks so far:
> > > 1) Can firmware be fixed in order to provide an ACPI table for
> > > the pin control devices?  
> >
> > No. The firmware will only receive security but no feature updates
> > ... 
> > > 2) Can you share firmware (BIOS ROM file I suppose) that I may
> > > flash on an Apollo Lake machine and see if I can reproduce the
> > > issue?  
> >
> > I do not have access. But all you need is a firware with no ACPI
> > entry and P2SB hidden. Or simply patch out the two probe paths ;).  
> 
> Yes, probably that will work.

I wonder how you would probe without the two with your "Not gonna
happen.". But maybe your patches will open my eyes and i have been
blind all the time.

> > > 3) As may be a last resort, can you share (remotely) or even send
> > > to us the device in question to try?  
> >
> > We are talking about multiple devices. Not just that one apollo
> > lake on which your patches kind of worked.
> >
> > But showed some weirdness which could really become a problem if
> > someone decided to add an ACPI entry ..  
> 
> Then it should have different DMI strings or so, it won't be the
> _same_ platform anymore.

There is different DMI in place. p1 introduces
"enum simatic_ipc_station_ids" with currently 7 different devices
matched with not a string but a "binary" behind
SIMATIC_IPC_DMI_ENTRY_OEM. The struct can be found in
simatic_ipc_get_station_id

Our strings could be custom, but that binary allows for real DMI
identifaction of those currently proposed 7 "platforms".

See p4 where i revert string-based DMI matching with
SIMATIC_IPC_DMI_ENTRY_OEM-based. Make sure to look at my answer to a
question in v4 p4 on that DMI topic.

regards,
Henning

> > It pin 42 name could be
> > GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX("apollolake-pinctrl.0", 42
> > or
> > GPIO_LOOKUP_IDX("INT3452:01", 42  
> 
> > I guess that conflict will have to be dealt with before your can
> > switch to probing pinctrl drivers based on cpu model and not only
> > ACPI/P2SB any longer.  
> 
> Not gonna happen.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists