| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFooBYfmWWpy=vw38sw=ANuaadJO4eCRKnq=286vftRPAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:54:35 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
Cc: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
Adrián Martínez Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@...labora.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/7] pmdomain: rockchip: forward rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain
errors
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 20:14, Sebastian Reichel
<sebastian.reichel@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 12:26:42PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 00:11, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 3:46 PM Sebastian Reichel
> > > <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:53:34PM -0500, Peter Geis wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 9:32 AM Sebastian Reichel
> > > > > <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain prints a warning if there
> > > > > > have been errors turning on the power domain, but it does not return
> > > > > > any errors and rockchip_pd_power() tries to continue setting up the
> > > > > > QOS registers. This usually results in accessing unpowered registers,
> > > > > > which triggers an SError and a full system hang.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This improves the error handling by forwarding the error to avoid
> > > > > > kernel panics.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should merge your patch here with my patch for returning
> > > > > errors from rockchip_pmu_set_idle_request [1].
> > > >
> > > > I will have a look.
> > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Adrian Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@...labora.com> # On Rock 5B
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c b/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> > > > > > index a161ee13c633..8f440f2883db 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/rockchip/pm-domains.c
> > > > > > @@ -533,16 +533,17 @@ static int rockchip_pmu_domain_mem_reset(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd)
> > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -static void rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
> > > > > > - bool on)
> > > > > > +static int rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
> > > > > > + bool on)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
> > > > > > struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = &pd->genpd;
> > > > > > u32 pd_pwr_offset = pd->info->pwr_offset;
> > > > > > bool is_on, is_mem_on = false;
> > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (pd->info->pwr_mask == 0)
> > > > > > - return;
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (on && pd->info->mem_status_mask)
> > > > > > is_mem_on = rockchip_pmu_domain_is_mem_on(pd);
> > > > > > @@ -557,16 +558,21 @@ static void rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wmb();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (is_mem_on && rockchip_pmu_domain_mem_reset(pd))
> > > > > > - return;
> > > > > > + if (is_mem_on) {
> > > > > > + ret = rockchip_pmu_domain_mem_reset(pd);
> > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (readx_poll_timeout_atomic(rockchip_pmu_domain_is_on, pd, is_on,
> > > > > > - is_on == on, 0, 10000)) {
> > > > > > - dev_err(pmu->dev,
> > > > > > - "failed to set domain '%s', val=%d\n",
> > > > > > - genpd->name, is_on);
> > > > > > - return;
> > > > > > + ret = readx_poll_timeout_atomic(rockchip_pmu_domain_is_on, pd, is_on,
> > > > > > + is_on == on, 0, 10000);
> > > > > > + if (ret) {
> > > > > > + dev_err(pmu->dev, "failed to set domain '%s' %s, val=%d\n",
> > > > > > + genpd->name, on ? "on" : "off", is_on);
> > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static int rockchip_pd_power(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd, bool power_on)
> > > > > > @@ -592,7 +598,11 @@ static int rockchip_pd_power(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd, bool power_on)
> > > > > > rockchip_pmu_set_idle_request(pd, true);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(pd, power_on);
> > > > > > + ret = rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(pd, power_on);
> > > > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > > > + clk_bulk_disable(pd->num_clks, pd->clks);
> > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at it, we shouldn't return directly from here because the
> > > > > mutex never gets unlocked.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we should do that after patch 2/7 from this series :)
> > >
> > > That's excellent!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Instead of repeating clk_bulk_disable and return ret for each failure,
> > > > > we can initialize ret = 0, have a goto: out pointing to
> > > > > clk_bulk_disable, and change return 0 to return ret at the end.
> > > >
> > > > Right now there is only a single clk_bulk_disable() in an error
> > > > case, so I did not use the typical error goto chain. I suppose
> > > > it makes a lot more sense with proper error handling for the calls
> > > > to rockchip_pmu_set_idle_request().
> > >
> > > If you'd like, I can base my v2 on this patch series with the changes
> > > I'm suggesting?
> >
> > I leave you guys to decide the best way forward, but please keep in
> > mind that fixes/stable patches are easier managed if they are as
> > simple as possible and without relying on cleanup patches. Better fix
> > the problem first, then clean up the code.
>
> I had this ordered the other way around initially and as Heiko
> pointed out that makes things more complicated overall:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/4864529.A9s0UXYOmP@diego/
Right, I have no strong opinions, but leave the decision to you.
Still, we need confirmation on the regulator-patch (patch1) from Mark,
before I can apply any of this.
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists