| 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: <9ab5375c-d911-ab3-5522-e0e1dd33f043@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:03:45 +0300 (EEST)
From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@....com>
cc: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, lenb@...nel.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, alexander.deucher@....com, Lijo.Lazar@....com,
mario.limonciello@....com, majun@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
Evan Quan <quanliangl@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 9/9] drm/amd/pm: enable Wifi RFI mitigation feature
support for SMU13.0.7
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, Ma Jun wrote:
> From: Evan Quan <quanliangl@...mail.com>
>
> Fulfill the SMU13.0.7 support for Wifi RFI mitigation feature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Evan Quan <quanliangl@...mail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@....com>
> --
> v10->v11:
> - downgrade the prompt level on message failure(Lijo)
> ---
> .../drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> index 62f2886ab4df..c5736fb3cf6d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ static struct cmn2asic_msg_mapping smu_v13_0_7_message_map[SMU_MSG_MAX_COUNT] =
> MSG_MAP(AllowGpo, PPSMC_MSG_SetGpoAllow, 0),
> MSG_MAP(GetPptLimit, PPSMC_MSG_GetPptLimit, 0),
> MSG_MAP(NotifyPowerSource, PPSMC_MSG_NotifyPowerSource, 0),
> + MSG_MAP(EnableUCLKShadow, PPSMC_MSG_EnableUCLKShadow, 0),
> };
>
> static struct cmn2asic_mapping smu_v13_0_7_clk_map[SMU_CLK_COUNT] = {
> @@ -207,6 +208,7 @@ static struct cmn2asic_mapping smu_v13_0_7_table_map[SMU_TABLE_COUNT] = {
> TAB_MAP(ACTIVITY_MONITOR_COEFF),
> [SMU_TABLE_COMBO_PPTABLE] = {1, TABLE_COMBO_PPTABLE},
> TAB_MAP(OVERDRIVE),
> + TAB_MAP(WIFIBAND),
> };
>
> static struct cmn2asic_mapping smu_v13_0_7_pwr_src_map[SMU_POWER_SOURCE_COUNT] = {
> @@ -503,6 +505,9 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_tables_init(struct smu_context *smu)
> AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM);
> SMU_TABLE_INIT(tables, SMU_TABLE_COMBO_PPTABLE, MP0_MP1_DATA_REGION_SIZE_COMBOPPTABLE,
> PAGE_SIZE, AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM);
> + SMU_TABLE_INIT(tables, SMU_TABLE_WIFIBAND,
> + sizeof(WifiBandEntryTable_t), PAGE_SIZE,
> + AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM);
>
> smu_table->metrics_table = kzalloc(sizeof(SmuMetricsExternal_t), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!smu_table->metrics_table)
> @@ -2179,6 +2184,57 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_set_df_cstate(struct smu_context *smu,
> NULL);
> }
>
> +static bool smu_v13_0_7_wbrf_support_check(struct smu_context *smu)
> +{
> + return smu->smc_fw_version > 0x00524600;
> +}
> +
> +static int smu_v13_0_7_set_wbrf_exclusion_ranges(struct smu_context *smu,
> + struct freq_band_range *exclusion_ranges)
> +{
> + WifiBandEntryTable_t wifi_bands;
> + int valid_entries = 0;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + memset(&wifi_bands, 0, sizeof(wifi_bands));
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(wifi_bands.WifiBandEntry); i++) {
> + if (!exclusion_ranges[i].start &&
> + !exclusion_ranges[i].end)
After having seen this construct nth time, I think you should have a
static inline function for this check with a proper name.
> + break;
> +
> + /* PMFW expects the inputs to be in Mhz unit */
> + wifi_bands.WifiBandEntry[valid_entries].LowFreq =
> + DIV_ROUND_DOWN_ULL(exclusion_ranges[i].start, HZ_IN_MHZ);
> + wifi_bands.WifiBandEntry[valid_entries++].HighFreq =
> + DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(exclusion_ranges[i].end, HZ_IN_MHZ);
> + }
> + wifi_bands.WifiBandEntryNum = valid_entries;
> +
> + /*
> + * Per confirm with PMFW team, WifiBandEntryNum = 0 is a valid setting.
> + * Considering the scenarios below:
> + * - At first the wifi device adds an exclusion range e.g. (2400,2500) to
> + * BIOS and our driver gets notified. We will set WifiBandEntryNum = 1
> + * and pass the WifiBandEntry (2400, 2500) to PMFW.
> + *
> + * - Later the wifi device removes the wifiband list added above and
> + * our driver gets notified again. At this time, driver will set
> + * WifiBandEntryNum = 0 and pass an empty WifiBandEntry list to PMFW.
> + * - PMFW may still need to do some uclk shadow update(e.g. switching
> + * from shadow clock back to primary clock) on receiving this.
> + */
> +
> + ret = smu_cmn_update_table(smu,
> + SMU_TABLE_WIFIBAND,
> + 0,
> + (void *)(&wifi_bands),
> + true);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_warn(smu->adev->dev, "Failed to set wifiband!");
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Is this whole function duplicate of the one in the other file? Don't
duplicate code like this but create reusable functions properly.
--
i.
> +
> static const struct pptable_funcs smu_v13_0_7_ppt_funcs = {
> .get_allowed_feature_mask = smu_v13_0_7_get_allowed_feature_mask,
> .set_default_dpm_table = smu_v13_0_7_set_default_dpm_table,
> @@ -2247,6 +2303,9 @@ static const struct pptable_funcs smu_v13_0_7_ppt_funcs = {
> .set_mp1_state = smu_v13_0_7_set_mp1_state,
> .set_df_cstate = smu_v13_0_7_set_df_cstate,
> .gpo_control = smu_v13_0_gpo_control,
> + .is_asic_wbrf_supported = smu_v13_0_7_wbrf_support_check,
> + .enable_uclk_shadow = smu_v13_0_enable_uclk_shadow,
> + .set_wbrf_exclusion_ranges = smu_v13_0_7_set_wbrf_exclusion_ranges,
> };
>
> void smu_v13_0_7_set_ppt_funcs(struct smu_context *smu)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists