All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	<airlied@linux.ie>, <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, <mripard@kernel.org>,
	<tzimmermann@suse.de>
Cc: <quic_carlv@quicinc.com>, <quic_ajitpals@quicinc.com>,
	<quic_pkanojiy@quicinc.com>, <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/14] drm/qaic: Add uapi and core driver file
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:22:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9eba0937-b4cb-4c62-e339-8ff33aebdbde@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f755d24-969b-1804-7979-880a9fe10cba@linaro.org>

On 8/16/2022 12:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/08/2022 20:47, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>>>> +static int qaic_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>> +			  const struct pci_device_id *id)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +	int mhi_irq;
>>>> +	struct qaic_device *qdev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	qdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*qdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (!qdev) {
>>>
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> So, no centralized exit per the coding style?  Ok.
> 
> Centralized exit except for cases where it is simply return. >
>>
>>>
>>>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +		goto qdev_fail;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (id->device == PCI_DEV_AIC100) {
>>>> +		qdev->num_dbc = 16;
>>>> +		qdev->dbc = kcalloc(qdev->num_dbc, sizeof(*qdev->dbc),
>>>> +				    GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> Why not devm?
>>
>> We were having issues with devm and the PCI stuff.  Looking at this
>> again, I think we can apply that here.
>>
>>>
>>>> +		if (!qdev->dbc) {
>>>> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +			goto device_id_fail;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		pci_dbg(pdev, "%s: No matching device found for device id %d\n",
>>>> +			__func__, id->device);
>>>
>>> How this can happen?
>>
>> Badly functioning hardware.  That hardware has been removed from
>> circulation.  Given that this is an init path and not performance
>> critical, having this handle the scenario in a sane way instead of
>> having the driver blow up in a weird way much later on makes me feel better.
> 
> How badly functioning hardware can bind and then report some different
> ID? If it reports different ID, it cannot bind...

It was one of those issues that was painful enough that I still remember 
it occurring, but long ago enough that I don't remember the specifics.

I don't think I'll be able to recreate the issue to re-debug it, so I'll 
just remove this.

>>>> +static int __init qaic_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (datapath_polling) {
>>>> +		poll_datapath = true;
>>>> +		pr_info("qaic: driver initializing in datapath polling mode\n");
>>>
>>> No pr() in normal path of init/exit.
>>
>> This is not the normal path.  datapath_polling is a module parameter.
>> This is something the user can enable, and so it would be good to have
>> the user informed that the option took effect.
> 
> No, not really. User always can check via sysfs and there is no point in
> polluting dmesg on module load. It might be printed (if someone has such
> modprobe setting) on every system, even without the actual device.

So, I guess this is limited to platform devices?
I see GIC, IOMMU, and PCI doing the same
I guess, will remove.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	qaic_logging_register();
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = mhi_driver_register(&qaic_mhi_driver);
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		pr_debug("qaic: mhi_driver_register failed %d\n", ret);
>>>> +		goto free_class;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = pci_register_driver(&qaic_pci_driver);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> No need for such blank lines.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		pr_debug("qaic: pci_register_driver failed %d\n", ret);
>>>> +		goto free_mhi;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	qaic_telemetry_register();
>>>> +	qaic_ras_register();
>>>> +	qaic_ssr_register();
>>>> +	goto out;
>>>
>>> return 0.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +free_mhi:
>>>> +	mhi_driver_unregister(&qaic_mhi_driver);
>>>> +free_class:
>>>> +out:
>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>> +		qaic_logging_unregister();
>>>> +
>>>> +	return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void __exit qaic_exit(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	pr_debug("qaic: exit\n");
>>>
>>> No pr() in normal path of init/exit.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>> +	link_up = true;
>>>
>>> This is confusing...
>>
>> Will add a comment.  This ties into MHI, and how it can tear down in two
>> different ways, usually based on the link state.
> 
> Shouldn't this be link_up=false?

No.  module_exit() will be triggered on rmmod.  exit() will unregister 
the driver, which will cause qaic_pci_remove() to be called.  remove() 
calls qaic_mhi_free_controller() which uses the link state.

However, a hotplug event will also trigger qaic_pci_remove().

rmmod - link is up
hotplug - link is down

>> In this case, we are doing a clean tear down where the link is still up,
>> and so we should have MHI do the extra tear down that leaves the device
>> in a good state, in the event the driver gets added again.
>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	<airlied@linux.ie>,  <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	<maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, <mripard@kernel.org>,
	<tzimmermann@suse.de>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, quic_ajitpals@quicinc.com,
	quic_pkanojiy@quicinc.com, quic_carlv@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/14] drm/qaic: Add uapi and core driver file
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 12:22:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9eba0937-b4cb-4c62-e339-8ff33aebdbde@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f755d24-969b-1804-7979-880a9fe10cba@linaro.org>

On 8/16/2022 12:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/08/2022 20:47, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>>>> +static int qaic_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>> +			  const struct pci_device_id *id)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +	int mhi_irq;
>>>> +	struct qaic_device *qdev;
>>>> +
>>>> +	qdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*qdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (!qdev) {
>>>
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> So, no centralized exit per the coding style?  Ok.
> 
> Centralized exit except for cases where it is simply return. >
>>
>>>
>>>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +		goto qdev_fail;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (id->device == PCI_DEV_AIC100) {
>>>> +		qdev->num_dbc = 16;
>>>> +		qdev->dbc = kcalloc(qdev->num_dbc, sizeof(*qdev->dbc),
>>>> +				    GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> Why not devm?
>>
>> We were having issues with devm and the PCI stuff.  Looking at this
>> again, I think we can apply that here.
>>
>>>
>>>> +		if (!qdev->dbc) {
>>>> +			ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> +			goto device_id_fail;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		pci_dbg(pdev, "%s: No matching device found for device id %d\n",
>>>> +			__func__, id->device);
>>>
>>> How this can happen?
>>
>> Badly functioning hardware.  That hardware has been removed from
>> circulation.  Given that this is an init path and not performance
>> critical, having this handle the scenario in a sane way instead of
>> having the driver blow up in a weird way much later on makes me feel better.
> 
> How badly functioning hardware can bind and then report some different
> ID? If it reports different ID, it cannot bind...

It was one of those issues that was painful enough that I still remember 
it occurring, but long ago enough that I don't remember the specifics.

I don't think I'll be able to recreate the issue to re-debug it, so I'll 
just remove this.

>>>> +static int __init qaic_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (datapath_polling) {
>>>> +		poll_datapath = true;
>>>> +		pr_info("qaic: driver initializing in datapath polling mode\n");
>>>
>>> No pr() in normal path of init/exit.
>>
>> This is not the normal path.  datapath_polling is a module parameter.
>> This is something the user can enable, and so it would be good to have
>> the user informed that the option took effect.
> 
> No, not really. User always can check via sysfs and there is no point in
> polluting dmesg on module load. It might be printed (if someone has such
> modprobe setting) on every system, even without the actual device.

So, I guess this is limited to platform devices?
I see GIC, IOMMU, and PCI doing the same
I guess, will remove.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	qaic_logging_register();
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = mhi_driver_register(&qaic_mhi_driver);
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		pr_debug("qaic: mhi_driver_register failed %d\n", ret);
>>>> +		goto free_class;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	ret = pci_register_driver(&qaic_pci_driver);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> No need for such blank lines.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>>
>>>> +	if (ret) {
>>>> +		pr_debug("qaic: pci_register_driver failed %d\n", ret);
>>>> +		goto free_mhi;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	qaic_telemetry_register();
>>>> +	qaic_ras_register();
>>>> +	qaic_ssr_register();
>>>> +	goto out;
>>>
>>> return 0.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +free_mhi:
>>>> +	mhi_driver_unregister(&qaic_mhi_driver);
>>>> +free_class:
>>>> +out:
>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>> +		qaic_logging_unregister();
>>>> +
>>>> +	return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void __exit qaic_exit(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	pr_debug("qaic: exit\n");
>>>
>>> No pr() in normal path of init/exit.
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>> +	link_up = true;
>>>
>>> This is confusing...
>>
>> Will add a comment.  This ties into MHI, and how it can tear down in two
>> different ways, usually based on the link state.
> 
> Shouldn't this be link_up=false?

No.  module_exit() will be triggered on rmmod.  exit() will unregister 
the driver, which will cause qaic_pci_remove() to be called.  remove() 
calls qaic_mhi_free_controller() which uses the link state.

However, a hotplug event will also trigger qaic_pci_remove().

rmmod - link is up
hotplug - link is down

>> In this case, we are doing a clean tear down where the link is still up,
>> and so we should have MHI do the extra tear down that leaves the device
>> in a good state, in the event the driver gets added again.
>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-16 18:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-15 18:42 [RFC PATCH 00/14] QAIC DRM accelerator driver Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 01/14] drm/qaic: Add documentation for AIC100 " Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-16 10:55   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 10:55     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 14:50     ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-16 14:50       ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 02/14] drm/qaic: Add uapi and core driver file Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-16 11:06   ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 11:06     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 17:47     ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-16 17:47       ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-16 18:00       ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 18:00         ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-16 18:22         ` Jeffrey Hugo [this message]
2022-08-16 18:22           ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-17  5:38           ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-17  5:38             ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 03/14] drm/qaic: Add qaic.h internal header Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 04/14] drm/qaic: Add MHI controller Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 05/14] drm/qaic: Add control path Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 06/14] drm/qaic: Add datapath Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 07/14] drm/qaic: Add debugfs Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 08/14] drm/qaic: Add RAS component Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 09/14] drm/qaic: Add ssr component Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 10/14] drm/qaic: Add sysfs Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 11/14] drm/qaic: Add telemetry Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 12/14] drm/qaic: Add tracepoints Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 13/14] drm/qaic: Add qaic driver to the build system Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42 ` [RFC PATCH 14/14] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for QAIC driver Jeffrey Hugo
2022-08-15 18:42   ` Jeffrey Hugo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9eba0937-b4cb-4c62-e339-8ff33aebdbde@quicinc.com \
    --to=quic_jhugo@quicinc.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=mripard@kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_ajitpals@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_carlv@quicinc.com \
    --cc=quic_pkanojiy@quicinc.com \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.