Message-ID: <Yl+6ygoF0MTj37d5@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:48:26 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, markgross@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] Documentation: In-Field Scan

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 12:45:03PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 9:48 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:38:50AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> > > Add documentation for In-Field Scan (IFS). This documentation
> > > describes the basics of IFS, the loading IFS image, chunk
> > > authentication, running scan and how to check result via sysfs
> > > as well as tunable parameters.
> > >
> > > The CORE_CAPABILITIES MSR enumerates whether IFS is supported.
> > >
> > > The full  github location for distributing the IFS images is
> > > still being decided. So just a placeholder included for now
> > > in the documentation.
> > >
> > > Future CPUs will support more than one type of test. Plan for
> > > that now by using a ".0" suffix on the ABI directory names.
> > > Additional test types will use ".1", etc.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/x86/ifs.rst   | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  Documentation/x86/index.rst |   1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/x86/ifs.rst
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/x86/ifs.rst b/Documentation/x86/ifs.rst
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..62f3c07d433a
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/x86/ifs.rst
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
> > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +
> > > +=============
> > > +In-Field Scan
> > > +=============
> > > +
> > > +Introduction
> > > +------------
> > > +
> > > +In Field Scan (IFS) is a hardware feature to run circuit level tests on
> > > +a CPU core to detect problems that are not caught by parity or ECC checks.
> > > +Future CPUs will support more than one type of test which will show up
> > > +with a new platform-device instance-id, for now only .0 is exposed.
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +IFS Image
> > > +---------
> > > +
> > > +Intel provides a firmware file containing the scan tests via
> > > +github [#f1]_.  Similar to microcode there is a separate file for each
> > > +family-model-stepping.
> > > +
> > > +IFS Image Loading
> > > +-----------------
> > > +
> > > +The driver loads the tests into memory reserved BIOS local to each CPU
> > > +socket in a two step process using writes to MSRs to first load the
> > > +SHA hashes for the test. Then the tests themselves. Status MSRs provide
> > > +feedback on the success/failure of these steps. When a new test file
> > > +is installed it can be loaded by writing to the driver reload file::
> > > +
> > > +  # echo 1 > /sys/bus/platform/drivers/intel_ifs.0/reload
> > > +
> > > +Similar to microcode, the current version of the scan tests is stored
> > > +in a fixed location: /lib/firmware/intel/ifs.0/family-model-stepping.scan
> > > +
> > > +Running tests
> > > +-------------
> > > +
> > > +Tests are run by the driver synchronizing execution of all threads on a
> > > +core and then writing to the ACTIVATE_SCAN MSR on all threads. Instruction
> > > +execution continues when:
> > > +
> > > +1) All tests have completed.
> > > +2) Execution was interrupted.
> > > +3) A test detected a problem.
> > > +
> > > +In all cases reading the SCAN_STATUS MSR provides details on what
> > > +happened. The driver makes the value of this MSR visible to applications
> > > +via the "details" file (see below). Interrupted tests may be restarted.
> > > +
> > > +The IFS driver provides sysfs interfaces via /sys/devices/platform/intel_ifs.0/
> > > +to control execution:
> > > +
> > > +Test a specific core::
> > > +
> > > +  # echo <cpu#> > /sys/devices/platform/intel_ifs.0/run_test
> > > +
> > > +when HT is enabled any of the sibling cpu# can be specified to test its
> > > +corresponding physical core. Since the tests are per physical core, the
> > > +result of testing any thread is same. It is only necessary to test one
> > > +thread.
> > > +
> > > +For e.g. to test core corresponding to cpu5
> > > +
> > > +  # echo 5 > /sys/devices/platform/intel_ifs.0/run_test
> > > +
> > > +Results of the last test is provided in /sys::
> > > +
> > > +  $ cat /sys/devices/platform/intel_ifs.0/status
> > > +  pass
> >
> > sysfs documentation belongs in Documentation/ABI/
> >
> > And why not just include this whole thing in the driver itself and suck
> > the documentation out of that?  No need to have a separate file.
> 
> At a minimum a separate file is needed to house the
> ---
>  .. kernel-doc:: $source_file
>    :doc: $header
> ---
> ...statements, but ok, I'll recommend that going forward to
> de-emphasize shipping content directly from Documentation/ when it can
> be ingested from "DOC:" source. I had been assuming DOC: blocks in the
> code were more for augmenting kernel-doc on driver internal ABIs and
> not longer theory of operation documentation that is an awkward fit
> for Documentation/ABI/.

I don't know which is better, it's just that creating a whole new
documentation file for a single tiny driver feels very odd as it will
get out of date and is totally removed from the driver itself.

I'd prefer that drivers be self-contained, including the documentation,
as it is much more obvious what is happening with that.  Spreading stuff
around the tree only causes stuff to get out of sync easier.

thanks,

greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists