| 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:
<PAXPR04MB8459A73179FFF0ED0C9A51E488D12@PAXPR04MB8459.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:12:45 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
CC: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>, Cristian Marussi
<cristian.marussi@....com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, Greg
Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Aisheng Dong <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"
<arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass setting fwnode for
scmi cpufreq
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass setting
> fwnode for scmi cpufreq
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass setting
> > fwnode for scmi cpufreq
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:59:33AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:45:44AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: bus: Bypass
> setting
> > > > > fwnode for scmi cpufreq
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 08:59:18AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, if I misunderstood.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will give a look on this and propose a RFC.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DT maintainers may ask for a patchset including binding
> change
> > > > > > and driver changes to get a whole view on the compatible
> stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, Cristian, Saravana if you have any objections/ideas or
> > > > > > would
> > > > > take
> > > > > > on this effort, please let me know.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you point me to the DTS with which you are seeing this
> issue ?
> > > > > I am trying to reproduce the issue but so far not successful. I
> > > > > did move to power-domains for CPUFreq on Juno. IIUC all we
> > need is
> > > > > both cpufreq and performance genpd drivers in the kernel and
> > then
> > > > > GPU using perf genpd fails with probe deferral right ? I need
> > > > > pointers to reproduce the issue so that I can check if what I
> > > > > have cooked up as a solution really works.
> > > >
> > > > This is in downstream tree:
> > > >
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > gi
> > > > thub.com%2Fnxp-imx%2Flinux-imx%2Fblob%2Flf-
> > 6.6.y%2Farch%2Farm64%2Fbo
> > > >
> >
> ot%2Fdts%2Ffreescale%2Fimx95.dtsi%23L2971&data=05%7C02%7Cpe
> > ng.fan%40
> > > >
> >
> nxp.com%7C72778d531e944c7214ca08dd5fd95012%7C686ea1d3bc2
> > b4c6fa92cd99
> > > >
> > c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638772109152491267%7CUnknown%7CT
> > WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb
> > > >
> >
> XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOI
> > joiTWFpb
> > > >
> >
> CIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nHFiE5qD7NpmdGmj
> > SUL0mIdOq8P4W
> > > > ErqVq8xE%2Fb3WM0%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > gi
> > > > thub.com%2Fnxp-imx%2Flinux-imx%2Fblob%2Flf-
> > 6.6.y%2Farch%2Farm64%2Fbo
> > > >
> >
> ot%2Fdts%2Ffreescale%2Fimx95.dtsi%23L3043&data=05%7C02%7Cpe
> > ng.fan%40
> > > >
> >
> nxp.com%7C72778d531e944c7214ca08dd5fd95012%7C686ea1d3bc2
> > b4c6fa92cd99
> > > >
> > c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638772109152521215%7CUnknown%7CT
> > WFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb
> > > >
> >
> XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOI
> > joiTWFpb
> > > >
> >
> CIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M4LJumL6y9bQ%2FL
> > ocPvlNiMnCFtO
> > > > vODYNrC0DGbbydxY%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> >
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
> > gi
> > > > thub.com%2Fnxp-imx%2Flinux-imx%2Fblob%2Flf-
> > 6.6.y%2Farch%2Farm64%2Fbo
> > > >
> >
> ot%2Fdts%2Ffreescale%2Fimx95.dtsi%23L80&data=05%7C02%7Cpeng
> > .fan%40nx
> > > >
> >
> p.com%7C72778d531e944c7214ca08dd5fd95012%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> > c6fa92cd99c5
> > > >
> >
> c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638772109152541725%7CUnknown%7CTWF
> > pbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB
> > > >
> >
> 0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoi
> > TWFpbCI
> > > >
> >
> sIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=VpxcGrB6Dnr9yCO%2F
> > wl8sEw1LYSlX5
> > > > nPHqnlJ5mKm%2B7A%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > > we are using "power-domains" property for cpu perf and gpu/vpu
> > perf.
> > > >
> > > > If cpufreq.off=1 is set in bootargs, the vpu/gpu driver will defer
> > probe.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK, does the probe of these drivers get called or they don't as the
> > > driver core doesn't allow that ? I just have a dummy driver for mali
> > > on Juno which just does dev_pm_domain_attach_list() in the probe
> > and
> > > it seem to succeed even when cpufreq.off=1 is passed. I see
> > > scmi-cpufreq failing with -ENODEV as expected.
> > >
> > > I need to follow the code and check if I can somehow reproduce.
> Also
> > > are you sure this is not with anything in the downstream code ?
> Also
> > > have you tried this with v6.14-rc* ? Are you sure all the fw_devlink
> > > code is backported in the tree you pointed me which is v6.6-stable ?
> > >
> >
> > I even tried the above branch, but no luck. The above is neither
> > latest stable version nor pure stable. It has few extra patches
> > backported though IIUC. Anyways any pointers to enable me to
> reproduce
> > the issue would be much appreciated.
>
> I will setup test based latest linux-next and share results. Please wait.
Based on linux-next, I added below node:
+
+ test@...00000 {
+ compatible = "fsl,imx-test";
+ power-domains = <&scmi_devpd IMX95_PD_VPU>, <&scmi_perf IMX95_PERF_VPU>;
+ power-domain-names = "vpumix", "vpuperf";
+ };
I not write a driver for it, so just check devlink information from sysfs interface.
>From below sys directory, this test device takes scmi_dev.4 and scmi_dev.3 as supplier.
root@...95evk:/sys/bus/platform/devices/soc:test@...00000# ls
driver_override of_node subsystem supplier:scmi_protocol:scmi_dev.4 waiting_for_supplier
modalias power supplier:scmi_protocol:scmi_dev.3 uevent
Checking scmi_dev.4 below, it is scmi cpufreq, not the scmi perf device.
scmi_dev.3 is correct, it is genpd.
root@...95evk:/sys/bus/platform/devices/soc:test@...00000# cat /sys/bus/scmi_protocol/devices/scmi_dev.4/modalias
scmi_dev.4:13:cpufreq
root@...95evk:/sys/bus/platform/devices/soc:test@...00000# cat /sys/bus/scmi_protocol/devices/scmi_dev.3/modalias
scmi_dev.3:11:genpd
root@...95evk:/sys/bus/platform/devices/soc:test@...00000#
So it is clear that wrong fw_devlink is created, it is because scmi cpufreq device is
created earlier and when device_add, the below logic makes the fwnode pointer points
to scmi cpufreq device.
if (dev->fwnode && !dev->fwnode->dev) {
dev->fwnode->dev = dev;
fw_devlink_link_device(dev);
}
Hope this is clear.
Regards,
Peng.
>
> Thanks,
> Peng.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists