linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass setting fwnode for scmi cpufreq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z3Qy-br-wVCLpo7Q@pluto>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 18:07:53 +0000
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass setting fwnode for
 scmi cpufreq

On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 03:13:06PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 04:20:44PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> >
> > Two drivers scmi_cpufreq.c and scmi_perf_domain.c both use
> > SCMI_PROTCOL_PERF protocol, but with different name, so two scmi devices
> > will be created. But the fwnode->dev could only point to one device.
> >
> > If scmi cpufreq device created earlier, the fwnode->dev will point to
> > the scmi cpufreq device. Then the fw_devlink will link performance
> > domain user device(consumer) to the scmi cpufreq device(supplier).
> > But actually the performance domain user device, such as GPU, should use
> > the scmi perf device as supplier. Also if 'cpufreq.off=1' in bootargs,
> > the GPU driver will defer probe always, because of the scmi cpufreq
> > device not ready.
> >
> > Because for cpufreq, no need use fw_devlink. So bypass setting fwnode
> > for scmi cpufreq device.
> >

Hi,

> > Fixes: 96da4a99ce50 ("firmware: arm_scmi: Set fwnode for the scmi_device")
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > index 157172a5f2b577ce4f04425f967f548230c1ebed..12190d4dabb65484543044b4424fbe3b67245466 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> > @@ -345,6 +345,19 @@ static void __scmi_device_destroy(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
> >  	device_unregister(&scmi_dev->dev);
> >  }
> >
> > +static int
> > +__scmi_device_set_node(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev, struct device_node *np,
> > +		       int protocol, const char *name)
> > +{
> > +	/* cpufreq device does not need to be supplier from devlink perspective */
> > +	if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq"))
> > +		return 0;
> >
> 
> This is just a assumption based on current implementation. What happens
> if this is needed. Infact, it is used in the current implementation to
> create a dummy clock provider, so for sure with this change that will
> break IMO.

I agree with Sudeep on this: if you want to exclude some SCMI device from the
fw_devlink handling to address the issues with multiple SCMI devices
created on the same protocol nodes, cant we just flag this requirement here and
avoid to call device_link_add in driver:scmi_set_handle(), instead of
killing completely any possibility of referencing phandles (and having
device_link_add failing as a consequence of having a NULL supplier)

i.e. something like:

@bus.c
------
static int
__scmi_device_set_node(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev, struct device_node *np,
		       int protocol, const char *name)
{
	if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq"))
		scmi_dev->avoid_devlink = true;

	device_set_node(&scmi_dev->dev, of_fwnode_handle(np));
	....


and @driver.c
-------------

static void scmi_set_handle(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
{
	scmi_dev->handle = scmi_handle_get(&scmi_dev->dev);
	if (scmi_dev->handle && !scmi_dev->avoid_devlink)
		scmi_device_link_add(&scmi_dev->dev, scmi_dev->handle->dev);
}

.... so that you can avoid fw_devlink BUT keep the device_node NON-null
for the device.

This would mean also restoring the pre-existing explicit blacklisting in
pinctrl-imx to avoid issues when pinctrl subsystem searches by
device_node...

..or I am missing something ?

Thanks,
Cristian