Re: [PATCH v3 35/36] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Convert to MFD

[Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:32:02AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 01:21:08PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This driver only creates a bunch of platform devices sharing resources
> > > > belonging to the PMC device. This is pretty much what MFD subsystem is
> > > > for so move the driver there, renaming it to intel_pmc_bxt.c which
> > > > should be more clear what it is.
> > > > 
> > > > MFD subsystem provides nice helper APIs for subdevice creation so
> > > > convert the driver to use those. Unfortunately the ACPI device includes
> > > > separate resources for most of the subdevices so we cannot simply call
> > > > mfd_add_devices() to create all of them but instead we need to call it
> > > > separately for each device.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig                           |  16 +-
> > > >  drivers/mfd/Makefile                          |   1 +
> > > >  drivers/mfd/intel_pmc_bxt.c                   | 543 +++++++++++++++
> > > >  drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig                  |  16 +-
> > > >  drivers/platform/x86/Makefile                 |   1 -
> > > >  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c          | 650 ------------------
> > > >  .../platform/x86/intel_telemetry_debugfs.c    |   2 +-
> > > >  drivers/usb/typec/tcpm/Kconfig                |   2 +-
> > > >  .../linux/mfd/intel_pmc_bxt.h                 |  11 +-
> > > >  9 files changed, 573 insertions(+), 669 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_pmc_bxt.c
> > > >  delete mode 100644 drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
> > > >  rename arch/x86/include/asm/intel_pmc_ipc.h => include/linux/mfd/intel_pmc_bxt.h (83%)
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/errno.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/core.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mfd/intel_pmc_bxt.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <asm/intel_scu_ipc.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/platform_data/itco_wdt.h>
> > > 
> > > Why are these 2 header files separated form the rest?
> > 
> > This was like that in the original driver. I did not want to touch
> > non-functional parts too much during the conversion.
> 
> Although not a deal breaker in this instance, we need to think of this
> as a new driver since the expectations between Platform and MFD may
> well be different.

OK

> > > > +/* Residency with clock rate at 19.2MHz to usecs */
> > > > +#define S0IX_RESIDENCY_IN_USECS(d, s)		\
> > > > +({						\
> > > > +	u64 result = 10ull * ((d) + (s));	\
> > > > +	do_div(result, 192);			\
> > > > +	result;					\
> > > 
> > > OOI, what does this line do?
> > 
> > result becomes value of the whole expression, see:
> > 
> >   https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html#Statement-Exprs
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +static struct intel_pmc_dev {
> > > > +	struct device *dev;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* iTCO */
> > > 
> > > Not sure these are required, the variables are clear enough.
> > 
> > OK
> > 
> > > > +	struct resource tco_res[2];
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* gcr */
> > > > +	void __iomem *gcr_mem_base;
> > > > +	spinlock_t gcr_lock;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* punit */
> > > > +	struct resource punit_res[6];
> > > > +	unsigned int punit_res_count;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Telemetry */
> > > > +	struct resource *telem_base;
> > > > +} pmcdev;
> > > 
> > > Why not create this dynamically?
> > 
> > This is also from the original driver probably due to reasons that there
> > can be only a single PMC in a system.
> > 
> > I don't think anything prevents this to be created dynamically though.
> 
> Great.  That would help bring the driver into line with other drivers
> currently residing in MFD.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Looks like Regmap could save you the trouble here.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> 
> Great.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +static int update_no_reboot_bit(void *priv, bool set)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	u32 value = set ? PMC_CFG_NO_REBOOT_EN : PMC_CFG_NO_REBOOT_DIS;
> > > > +
> > > > +	return intel_pmc_gcr_update(PMC_GCR_PMC_CFG_REG,
> > > > +				    PMC_CFG_NO_REBOOT_MASK, value);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Only used by the Watchdog?  Maybe move in there?
> > 
> > Yes, this is only used by watchdog. 
> > 
> > We pass this function as part of itco_wdt_platform_data so that it does
> > not need to know the details about how to access the PMC.
> 
> Maybe Regmap will solve this too.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +static DEVICE_ATTR(simplecmd, 0200, NULL, intel_pmc_simple_cmd_store);
> > > 
> > > I assume you've drafted some documentation for this?
> > 
> > I don't think there is documentation about this yet. This is from the
> > original driver. I can add it though.
> > 
> > > If not, you need to.
> > 
> > Yup.
> 
> SYSFS entries require documenting in Documentation.

Yup, I'm aware of that :)

> [...]
> 
> > > Is that a good idea?  No security implications for doing so?
> > 
> > No don't think it is a good idea to be honest. I would like to get rid
> > of both of these but the problem is that these are part of userspace ABI
> > (that was exposed by to original driver) so changing it may break
> > something.
> 
> Hmm... that is an issue.  However, since it's not changing any
> existing behaviour, I won't make it an issue for *this* set of
> changes.  Please justify it in the commit log though please.

I will.

> [...]
> 
> > > > +	ret = pmc_create_telemetry_device();
> > > > +	if (ret)
> > > > +		dev_warn(pmcdev.dev, "Failed to add telemetry platform device\n");
> > > > +
> > > > +	return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Once you have split out the 'struct mfd_cells' from the functions
> > > above, you can move the devm_mfd_add_devices() calls into probe() and
> > > do away with all of these functions which will greatly simplify the
> > > driver as a whole.
> > 
> > OK, but there is one catch. Some of these addresses need to be filled
> > dynamically when we parse the device resources which means that we need
> > to take copy of that static structure to avoid modifying it. For example
> > if the driver is unbound and then bind back from sysfs the old values
> > are still there).
> 
> Not sure I understand.  If the driver is unbound then rebound, the
> device resources will be re-parsed, no?

Yes they are but I mean that when we fill those resources we change the
static struct mfd_cell contents. Now when the driver is unbound from
sysfs that stuff is left in the structure (as the module is not
unloaded). Probably not an issue anyway since next bind it will be
overwritten (or alternatively I'll just take a copy of that stuff).

> [...]
> 
> > > > +		return -ENXIO;
> > > 
> > > Is "No such device or address" the correct response for this?
> > 
> > That was in the original code. Maybe -ENOMEM is better in this case?
> 
> No, that's not correct either, since we haven't run out of memory.
> 
> -EINVAL and -ENODEV are common.

OK

> > > > +	tco_res[0].flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
> > > > +	tco_res[0].start = res->start + TCO_BASE_OFFSET;
> > > > +	tco_res[0].end = tco_res[0].start + TCO_REGS_SIZE - 1;
> > > > +	tco_res[1].flags = IORESOURCE_IO;
> > > > +	tco_res[1].start = res->start + SMI_EN_OFFSET;
> > > > +	tco_res[1].end = tco_res[1].start + SMI_EN_SIZE - 1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "IO: %pR\n", res);
> > > 
> > > Do all of these dev_dgb() prints really still serve a purpose?
> > 
> > No, just for seeing what the resources are. I can remove them.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > +	pmcdev.gcr_mem_base = addr + PLAT_RESOURCE_GCR_OFFSET;
> > > > +	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "IPC: %pR\n", res);
> > > > +
> > > > +	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
> > > > +				    PLAT_RESOURCE_TELEM_SSRAM_INDEX);
> > > > +	if (!res) {
> > > > +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get telemetry SSRAM resource\n");
> > > 
> > > Is this actually an error?  If so, it should return an error code.
> > 
> > I don't think this is an error. I can lower this to dev_dbg().
> 
> Maybe consider dev_warn() and change the working to make it not seem
> like a failure.

OK

> > > > +	} else {
> > > > +		dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "Telemetry SSRAM: %pR\n", res);
> > > > +		pmcdev.telem_base = res;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * intel_pmc_s0ix_counter_read() - Read S0ix residency.
> > > 
> > > What is residency?
> > 
> > Here it means amount of time the system has been in S0ix (low power mode
> > in intel CPUs).
> 
> Could you clarify that in the comments please?

Sure.

> [...]
> 
> > > > +	scu = intel_scu_ipc_probe(&pdev->dev, &pdata);
> > > 
> > > This is a parent or child device?
> > 
> > The SCU IPC is a library so here it is just the device that has the SCU
> > IPC registers the library can use.
> 
> "probing" a library doesn't sound right.
> 
> Looking at the code, I think this should be a device.

Well, by "library" I mean that the SCU IPC itself does not bind to
anything but instead it gets called by different drivers such as this
one passing the device pointer that is the SCU IPC device. Here for
example it is the platfrom device created from an ACPI description.