| 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: <CAJZ5v0g5vuO9jHD+vRUyCeNE7V6zaW6okAVep3V=TLRosk1NAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:41:41 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mario.limonciello@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com,
ray.huang@....com, pierre.gondois@....com, acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, hepeng68@...wei.com,
fanghao11@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] ACPI: CPPC: Add cppc_get_reg_val and
cppc_set_reg_val function
The word "function" at the end of the subject is redundant IMV.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:21 PM Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> Rename cppc_get_perf() to cppc_get_reg_val() as a generic function to read
> cppc registers, with four changes:
>
> 1. Change the error kind to "no such device" when pcc_ss_id < 0, which
> means that this cpu cannot get a valid pcc_ss_id.
>
> 2. Add a check to verify if the register is a mandatory or cpc supported
> one before using it.
>
> 3. Extract the operations if register is in pcc out as
> cppc_get_reg_val_in_pcc().
>
> 4. Return the result of cpc_read() instead of 0.
>
> Add cppc_set_reg_val() as a generic function for setting cppc registers
> value, with this features:
>
> 1. Check register type. If a register is writeable, it must be a buffer.
>
> 2. Check if the register is a optional and null one right after getting the
> register. Because if so, the rest of the operations are meaningless.
>
> 3. Extract the operations if register is in pcc out as
> cppc_set_reg_val_in_pcc().
>
> These functions can be used to reduce some existing code duplication.
This mixes functional changes with function renames and code
refactoring while it is better to do all of these things separately.
Why don't you split the patch into a few smaller patches doing each
one thing at a time? Like rename the existing function and refactor
it in one patch (if this makes sense), make functional changes to it
in another patch, then add new functions in a third one?
This would help to review the changes and explain why each of them is made.
> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> index 6454b469338f..571f94855dce 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> @@ -1181,43 +1181,102 @@ static int cpc_write(int cpu, struct cpc_register_resource *reg_res, u64 val)
> return ret_val;
> }
>
> -static int cppc_get_perf(int cpunum, enum cppc_regs reg_idx, u64 *perf)
> +static int cppc_get_reg_val_in_pcc(int cpu, struct cpc_register_resource *reg, u64 *val)
> {
> - struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpunum);
> + int pcc_ss_id = per_cpu(cpu_pcc_subspace_idx, cpu);
> + struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (pcc_ss_id < 0) {
> + pr_debug("Invalid pcc_ss_id\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + pcc_ss_data = pcc_data[pcc_ss_id];
> +
> + down_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> +
> + if (send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_READ) >= 0)
> + ret = cpc_read(cpu, reg, val);
> + else
> + ret = -EIO;
> +
> + up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int cppc_get_reg_val(int cpu, enum cppc_regs reg_idx, u64 *val)
> +{
> + struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu);
> struct cpc_register_resource *reg;
>
> if (!cpc_desc) {
> - pr_debug("No CPC descriptor for CPU:%d\n", cpunum);
> + pr_debug("No CPC descriptor for CPU:%d\n", cpu);
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[reg_idx];
>
> - if (CPC_IN_PCC(reg)) {
> - int pcc_ss_id = per_cpu(cpu_pcc_subspace_idx, cpunum);
> - struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL;
> - int ret = 0;
> -
> - if (pcc_ss_id < 0)
> - return -EIO;
> + if (IS_OPTIONAL_CPC_REG(reg_idx) && !CPC_SUPPORTED(reg)) {
> + pr_debug("CPC register (reg_idx=%d) is not supported\n", reg_idx);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
>
> - pcc_ss_data = pcc_data[pcc_ss_id];
> + if (CPC_IN_PCC(reg))
> + return cppc_get_reg_val_in_pcc(cpu, reg, val);
>
> - down_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> + return cpc_read(cpu, reg, val);
> +}
>
> - if (send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_READ) >= 0)
> - cpc_read(cpunum, reg, perf);
> - else
> - ret = -EIO;
> +static int cppc_set_reg_val_in_pcc(int cpu, struct cpc_register_resource *reg, u64 val)
> +{
> + int pcc_ss_id = per_cpu(cpu_pcc_subspace_idx, cpu);
> + struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = NULL;
> + int ret;
>
> - up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> + if (pcc_ss_id < 0) {
> + pr_debug("Invalid pcc_ss_id\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
>
> + ret = cpc_write(cpu, reg, val);
> + if (ret)
> return ret;
> +
> + pcc_ss_data = pcc_data[pcc_ss_id];
> +
> + down_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> + /* after writing CPC, transfer the ownership of PCC to platform */
> + ret = send_pcc_cmd(pcc_ss_id, CMD_WRITE);
> + up_write(&pcc_ss_data->pcc_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int cppc_set_reg_val(int cpu, enum cppc_regs reg_idx, u64 val)
> +{
> + struct cpc_desc *cpc_desc = per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu);
> + struct cpc_register_resource *reg;
> +
> + if (!cpc_desc) {
> + pr_debug("No CPC descriptor for CPU:%d\n", cpu);
> + return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> - cpc_read(cpunum, reg, perf);
> + reg = &cpc_desc->cpc_regs[reg_idx];
>
> - return 0;
> + /* if a register is writeable, it must be a buffer */
> + if ((reg->type != ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER) ||
> + (IS_OPTIONAL_CPC_REG(reg_idx) && IS_NULL_REG(®->cpc_entry.reg))) {
> + pr_debug("CPC register (reg_idx=%d) is not supported\n", reg_idx);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + if (CPC_IN_PCC(reg))
> + return cppc_set_reg_val_in_pcc(cpu, reg, val);
> +
> + return cpc_write(cpu, reg, val);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1229,7 +1288,7 @@ static int cppc_get_perf(int cpunum, enum cppc_regs reg_idx, u64 *perf)
> */
> int cppc_get_desired_perf(int cpunum, u64 *desired_perf)
> {
> - return cppc_get_perf(cpunum, DESIRED_PERF, desired_perf);
> + return cppc_get_reg_val(cpunum, DESIRED_PERF, desired_perf);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_desired_perf);
>
> @@ -1242,7 +1301,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_desired_perf);
> */
> int cppc_get_nominal_perf(int cpunum, u64 *nominal_perf)
> {
> - return cppc_get_perf(cpunum, NOMINAL_PERF, nominal_perf);
> + return cppc_get_reg_val(cpunum, NOMINAL_PERF, nominal_perf);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -1254,7 +1313,7 @@ int cppc_get_nominal_perf(int cpunum, u64 *nominal_perf)
> */
> int cppc_get_highest_perf(int cpunum, u64 *highest_perf)
> {
> - return cppc_get_perf(cpunum, HIGHEST_PERF, highest_perf);
> + return cppc_get_reg_val(cpunum, HIGHEST_PERF, highest_perf);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_highest_perf);
>
> @@ -1267,7 +1326,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_highest_perf);
> */
> int cppc_get_epp_perf(int cpunum, u64 *epp_perf)
> {
> - return cppc_get_perf(cpunum, ENERGY_PERF, epp_perf);
> + return cppc_get_reg_val(cpunum, ENERGY_PERF, epp_perf);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cppc_get_epp_perf);
>
> --
> 2.33.0
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists