linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: syscon: introduce no-auto-mmio DT property

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: <CAGb2v664ybgMVCFWcDK-5cJZegC1HJmCg4-qJdgZ=7GAL4jOTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 20:50:50 +0800
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, John Madieu <john.madieu.xa@...renesas.com>, 
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>, 
	Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mfd: syscon: introduce no-auto-mmio DT property

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 8:39 PM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 09:33:39AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, at 08:33, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 08:43:33PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2025, at 18:27, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >> > Most syscons are accessed via MMMIO and created automatically.  But one
> > >> > example of a syscon that isn't is in drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c
> > >> > where the syscon can only be accessed via the secure partition.  We are
> > >> > looking at upstreaming a different driver where the syscon will be
> > >> > accessed via SCMI.
> > >> >
> > >> > Normally, syscons are accessed by doing something like
> > >> > syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args() but that function will
> > >> > automatically create an MMIO syscon if one hasn't been registered.  So
> > >> > the ordering becomes a problem.  The exynos-pmu.c driver solves this
> > >> > but it's a bit awkward and it would be even trickier if there were
> > >> > several drivers accessing the same syscon.
> > >>
> > >> What would happen on the current exynos platform if we just take away
> > >> the 'regs' property? I would hope that we can avoid encoding what
> > >> is essentially operating system policy in that driver and instead
> > >> just describe it as a device that expects to be implemented by
> > >> firmware and doesn't need registers?
> > >
> > > Exynos solves this because they only have one phandle so when they parse
> > > it, that's when then they create the syscon.  If you had multiple drivers
> > > accessing the same syscon then that doesn't work.
> >
> > I'm not following the logic here.  Do you mean that they avoid the
> > issue today by ensuring that the regmap is always probed before
> > its only user, or do you mean something else?
> >
> > > If we left out the "regs" property it wouldn't be created automatically
> > > but syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() will return -EINVAL and probe would
> > > fail.  It needs to be -EPROBE_DEFER so the probe tries again after the
> > > regmap is registered.  We'd need to add a check like this (untested):
> >
> > Right, this is exactly what I had in mind. With a new kernel and old
> > dtb, this would not change anything, while an old kernel but new dtb
> > would run into a different bug and fail to probe instead of using the
> > wrong device. I think both cases are fine.
> >
> >      Arnd
>
> Actually, probably the right thing to do is to leave out the "syscon"
> compatible.  That's what the drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c driver does.
> There is still an ordering issue where the sunxi_sram SoC driver needs
> to be probed first or the stmmac driver probe will fail.  There is probably
> some kind of way that SoC drivers are always probed earlier?

Yeah. The syscon API still needs to be modified to return -EPROBE_DEFER
to be complete. In our case the failure is unlikely to happen.

On sunxi, the SRAM controller block just happens to be at the beginning
of the MMIO address space, and being at the top of the device tree, lets
it be the first driver to be probed. Unless someone made it a module and
the rootfs wasn't available yet.

Also, in the past, on most devices we were actually using dev_get_regmap()
to retrieve the regmap tied to the device. I think it _may_ be an abuse
of the API? We did have one platform that had no driver for the block
that had the registers the stmmac driver needed, so that one was indeed
a syscon, which is why the dwmac-sun8i driver tries both methods.


ChenYu

> Beside the exynos driver the only other place that calls
> of_syscon_register_regmap() is drivers/soc/renesas/rz-sysc.c but I don't
> think that syscon has any users yet.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter