linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Fix broken tsadc pinctrl binding for rk3588

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: <61b494b209d7360d0f36adbf6d5443a4@manjaro.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:37:05 +0100
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Shiyan <eagle.alexander923@...il.com>, Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner
 <heiko@...ech.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel
 <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, Krzysztof
 Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Fix broken tsadc pinctrl binding
 for rk3588

On 2025-01-24 11:25, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 2:06 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org> 
> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-24 09:33, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 9:26 AM Alexander Shiyan
>> > <eagle.alexander923@...il.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> There is no pinctrl "gpio" and "otpout" (probably designed as
>> >> "output")
>> >> handling in the tsadc driver.
>> >> Let's use proper binding "default" and "sleep".
>> >
>> > This looks reasonable, however I've tried it on my Radxa Rock 5C and
>> > the driver still doesn't claim GPIO0 RK_PA1 even with this change. As
>> > a result, a simulated thermal runaway condition (I've changed the
>> > tshut temperature to 65000 and tshut mode to 1) doesn't trigger a PMIC
>> > reset, even though a direct `gpioset 0 1=0` does.
>> >
>> > Are any additional changes needed to the driver itself?
>> 
>> I've been digging through this patch the whole TSADC/OTP thing in the
>> last couple of hours, and AFAIK some parts of the upstream driver are
>> still missing, in comparison with the downstream driver.
>> 
>> I've got some small suggestions for the patch itself, but the issue
>> you observed is obviously of higher priority, and I've singled it out
>> as well while digging through the code.
>> 
>> Could you, please, try the patch below quickly, to see is it going to
>> fix the issue you observed?  I've got some "IRL stuff" to take care of
>> today, so I can't test it myself, and it would be great to know is it
>> the right path to the proper fix.
>> 
>> diff --git i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>> w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>> index f551df48eef9..62f0e14a8d98 100644
>> --- i/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>> +++ w/drivers/thermal/rockchip_thermal.c
>> @@ -1568,6 +1568,11 @@ static int rockchip_thermal_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>          thermal->chip->initialize(thermal->grf, thermal->regs,
>>                                    thermal->tshut_polarity);
>> 
>> +       if (thermal->tshut_mode == TSHUT_MODE_GPIO)
>> +               pinctrl_select_default_state(dev);
>> +       else
>> +               pinctrl_select_sleep_state(dev);
> 
> I believe no 'else' block is needed here, because if tshut_mode is not
> TSHUT_MODE_GPIO then the TSADC doesn't use this pin at all, so there's
> no reason for the driver to mess with its pinctrl state. I'd rather
> put a mirroring block to put the pin back to its 'sleep' state in the
> removal function for the TSHUT_MODE_GPIO case.

You're right, but the "else block" is what the downstream driver does,
so I think it's better to simply stay on the safe side and follow that
logic in the upstream driver.  Is it really needed?  Perhaps not, but
it also shouldn't hurt.

> Will try and revert.

Awesome, thanks!

> P.S. Just looked at the downstream driver, and it actually calls
> TSHUT_MODE_GPIO TSHUT_MODE_OTP instead, so it seems that "otpout" was
> not a typo in the first place. So maybe the right approach here is not
> to change the device tree but rather fix the "gpio" / "otpout" pinctrl
> state handling in the driver.

Indeed, "otpout" wasn't a typo, and I've already addressed that in my
comments to Alexander's patch.  Will send that response a bit later.

I think it's actually better to accept the approach in Alexander's
patch, because the whole thing applies to other Rockchip SoCs as well,
not just to the RK3588(S).