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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60883883-6961-49ec-ac47-adeee81bdf70@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:34:24 +0530
From: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Sanket.Goswami@....com,
 linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] i3c: master: Add ACPI support to i3c subsystem



On 11/14/2024 13:26, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 14/11/2024 10:03:13+0530, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/13/2024 19:51, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 01:03:20PM +0530, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>>> As of now, the I3C subsystem only has ARM-specific initialization, and
>>>> there is no corresponding ACPI plumbing present. To address this, ACPI
>>>> support needs to be added to both the I3C core and DW driver.
>>>>
>>>> Add support to get the ACPI handle from the _HID probed and parse the apci
>>>> object to retrieve the slave information from BIOS.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the acpi object information propogated via BIOS, build the i3c
>>>> board information so that the same information can be used across the
>>>> driver to handle the slave requests.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cc: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/i3c/internals.h            |  3 ++
>>>>  drivers/i3c/master.c               | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c |  7 +++
>>>>  include/linux/i3c/master.h         |  1 +
>>>>  4 files changed, 95 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i3c/internals.h b/drivers/i3c/internals.h
>>>> index 433f6088b7ce..178bc0ebe6b6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i3c/internals.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i3c/internals.h
>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
>>>>  
>>>>  #include <linux/i3c/master.h>
>>>>  
>>>> +#define I3C_GET_PID		0x08
>>>> +#define I3C_GET_ADDR		0x7F
>>>> +
>>>>  void i3c_bus_normaluse_lock(struct i3c_bus *bus);
>>>>  void i3c_bus_normaluse_unlock(struct i3c_bus *bus);
>>>>  
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i3c/master.c b/drivers/i3c/master.c
>>>> index 6f3eb710a75d..0ceef2aa9161 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i3c/master.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i3c/master.c
>>>> @@ -2251,6 +2251,84 @@ static int of_i3c_master_add_dev(struct i3c_master_controller *master,
>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)
>>>> +static int i3c_acpi_configure_master(struct i3c_master_controller *master)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct acpi_buffer buf = {ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL};
>>>> +	enum i3c_addr_slot_status addrstatus;
>>>> +	struct i3c_dev_boardinfo *boardinfo;
>>>> +	struct device *dev = &master->dev;
>>>> +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
>>>> +	struct acpi_device *adev;
>>>> +	u32 slv_addr, num_dev;
>>>> +	acpi_status status;
>>>> +	u64 val;
>>>> +
>>>> +	status = acpi_evaluate_object_typed(master->ahandle, "_DSD", NULL, &buf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE);
>>>> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> +		dev_err(&master->dev, "Error reading _DSD:%s\n", acpi_format_exception(status));
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> Why do you need to do that?
>>>
>>>> +	num_dev = device_get_child_node_count(dev);
>>>> +	if (!num_dev) {
>>>> +		dev_err(&master->dev, "Error: no child node present\n");
>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> I think Jarkko already pointed out the problem with that. The whole
>>> check should be dropped.
>>>
>>>> +	device_for_each_child_node(dev, fwnode) {
>>>> +		adev = to_acpi_device_node(fwnode);
>>>> +		if (!adev)
>>>> +			return -ENODEV;
>>>> +
>>>> +		status = acpi_evaluate_integer(adev->handle, "_ADR", NULL, &val);
>>>> +		if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> +			dev_err(&master->dev, "Error: eval _ADR failed\n");
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>>> +		}
>>>
>>> val = acpi_device_adr(adev);
>>>
>>>> +		slv_addr = val & I3C_GET_ADDR;
>>>> +
>>>> +		boardinfo = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*boardinfo), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +		if (!boardinfo)
>>>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> +		if (slv_addr) {
>>>> +			if (slv_addr > I3C_MAX_ADDR)
>>>> +				return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +			addrstatus = i3c_bus_get_addr_slot_status(&master->bus, slv_addr);
>>>> +			if (addrstatus != I3C_ADDR_SLOT_FREE)
>>>> +				return -EINVAL;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		boardinfo->static_addr = slv_addr;
>>>> +		if (boardinfo->static_addr > I3C_MAX_ADDR)
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +		addrstatus = i3c_bus_get_addr_slot_status(&master->bus,	boardinfo->static_addr);
>>>> +		if (addrstatus != I3C_ADDR_SLOT_FREE)
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +		boardinfo->pid = val >> I3C_GET_PID;
>>>> +		if ((boardinfo->pid & GENMASK_ULL(63, 48)) ||
>>>> +		    I3C_PID_RND_LOWER_32BITS(boardinfo->pid))
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> +		/*
>>>> +		 * According to the specification, SETDASA is not supported for DIMM slaves
>>>> +		 * during device discovery. Therefore, BIOS will populate same initial
>>>> +		 * dynamic address as the static address.
>>>> +		 */
>>>> +		boardinfo->init_dyn_addr = boardinfo->static_addr;
>>>> +		list_add_tail(&boardinfo->node, &master->boardinfo.i3c);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#else
>>>> +static int i3c_acpi_configure_master(struct i3c_master_controller *master) { return 0; }
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> I think this code should be placed into a separate file.
>>>
>>> If the goal is to add ACPI support for code that is written for DT
>>> only, then I think the first thing to do before that really should be
>>> to convert the existing code to use the unified device property
>>> interface, and move all the DT-only parts to a separate file(s).
>>>
>>
>> Thank you Jarkko and Heikki. Let me work and these remarks and come
>> back with a new version.
>>
>> Jarkko, will you be able to pick 1/5 and 5/5 without a separate series
>> or do you want me to send one?
> 
> Please send a new series.

OK. I am spinning out two based on feedback received.

Thanks,
Shyam

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ