linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] platform/x86:intel/pmc: Get LPM information for Lunar Lake

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: <cd2a5552-0ab5-4d85-a419-7af3e97ffcb7@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 17:49:51 -0700
From: Xi Pardee <xi.pardee@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: irenic.rajneesh@...il.com, david.e.box@...ux.intel.com,
 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] platform/x86:intel/pmc: Get LPM information for
 Lunar Lake


On 8/29/2024 5:13 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2024, Xi Pardee wrote:
>
>> Add support to find and read the requirements from the telemetry
>> entries for Lunar Lake platforms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xi Pardee <xi.pardee@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/lnl.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/lnl.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/lnl.c
>> index 109b08d43fc8..f5fee9e105e2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/lnl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/pmc/lnl.c
>> @@ -13,8 +13,13 @@
>>   
>>   #include "core.h"
>>   
>> +#define SOCM_LPM_REQ_GUID	0x15099748
>> +
>> +static const u8 LNL_LPM_REG_INDEX[] = {0, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20};
>> +
>>   static struct pmc_info lnl_pmc_info_list[] = {
>>   	{
>> +		.guid	= SOCM_LPM_REQ_GUID,
>>   		.devid	= PMC_DEVID_LNL_SOCM,
>>   		.map	= &lnl_socm_reg_map,
>>   	},
>> @@ -536,6 +541,7 @@ const struct pmc_reg_map lnl_socm_reg_map = {
>>   	.lpm_live_status_offset = MTL_LPM_LIVE_STATUS_OFFSET,
>>   	.s0ix_blocker_maps = lnl_blk_maps,
>>   	.s0ix_blocker_offset = LNL_S0IX_BLOCKER_OFFSET,
>> +	.lpm_reg_index = LNL_LPM_REG_INDEX,
>>   };
>>   
>>   #define LNL_NPU_PCI_DEV		0x643e
>> @@ -561,6 +567,8 @@ static int lnl_resume(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>>   
>>   int lnl_core_init(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>>   {
>> +	bool ssram_init = true;
>> +	int func = 2;
>>   	int ret;
>>   	struct pmc *pmc = pmcdev->pmcs[PMC_IDX_SOC];
>>   
>> @@ -578,6 +586,7 @@ int lnl_core_init(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>>   
>>   	/* If regbase not assigned, set map and discover using legacy method */
>>   	if (ret) {
>> +		ssram_init = false;
>>   		pmc->map = &lnl_socm_reg_map;
>>   		ret = get_primary_reg_base(pmc);
>>   		if (ret)
>> @@ -586,5 +595,11 @@ int lnl_core_init(struct pmc_dev *pmcdev)
>>   
>>   	pmc_core_get_low_power_modes(pmcdev);
>>   
>> +	if (ssram_init)	{
>> +		ret = pmc_core_ssram_get_lpm_reqs(pmcdev, func);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
> There's quite much duplication related to this legacy/ssram init in
> the per arch core init functions. And some inconsistencies too which
> seem incidental such as mtl.c using return directly here.
I will try to extract the duplicate code to a common function and remove 
the
inconsistencies between different architecture in next version.

Xi