[PATCH v2 1/8] [PATCH 1/8] drivers/peci: Add support for PECI bus driver core
From: Jae Hyun Yoo <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-21 20:31:24
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-hwmon, lkml, openbmc
Hi Andrew, Thanks for sharing your time to review it. Please check my answers inline. On 2/21/2018 9:04 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
quoted
+static int peci_locked_xfer(struct peci_adapter *adapter, + struct peci_xfer_msg *msg, + bool do_retry, + bool has_aw_fcs) +{ + ktime_t start, end; + s64 elapsed_ms; + int rc = 0; + + if (!adapter->xfer) { + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "PECI level transfers not supported\n"); + return -ENODEV; + } + + if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) {Hi Jae Is there a real need to do transfers in atomic context, or with interrupts disabled?
Actually, no. Generally, this function will be called in sleep-able
context so this code is for an exceptional case handling.
I'll rewrite this code like below:
if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()) {
dev_dbg(&adapter->dev,
"xfer in non-sleepable context is not supported\n");
return -EWOULDBLOCK;
}
And then, will add a sleep call into the below loop.
I know that in_atomic() call is not recommended in driver code but some
driver codes still use it since there is no alternative way at this
time, AFAIK. Please tell me if there is a better solution.
quoted
+ rt_mutex_trylock(&adapter->bus_lock); + if (!rc) + return -EAGAIN; /* PECI activity is ongoing */ + } else { + rt_mutex_lock(&adapter->bus_lock); + } + + if (do_retry) + start = ktime_get(); + + do { + rc = adapter->xfer(adapter, msg); + + if (!do_retry) + break; + + /* Per the PECI spec, need to retry commands that return 0x8x */ + if (!(!rc && ((msg->rx_buf[0] & DEV_PECI_CC_RETRY_ERR_MASK) == + DEV_PECI_CC_TIMEOUT))) + break; + + /* Set the retry bit to indicate a retry attempt */ + msg->tx_buf[1] |= DEV_PECI_RETRY_BIT; + + /* Recalculate the AW FCS if it has one */ + if (has_aw_fcs) + msg->tx_buf[msg->tx_len - 1] = 0x80 ^ + peci_aw_fcs((u8 *)msg, + 2 + msg->tx_len); + + /* Retry for at least 250ms before returning an error */ + end = ktime_get(); + elapsed_ms = ktime_to_ms(ktime_sub(end, start)); + if (elapsed_ms >= DEV_PECI_RETRY_TIME_MS) { + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "Timeout retrying xfer!\n"); + break; + } + } while (true);So you busy loop to 1/4 second? How about putting a sleep in here so other things can be done between each retry. And should it not return -ETIMEDOUT after that 1/4 second?
Yes, you are right. I'll rewrite this code like below after adding the
above change:
/**
* Retry for at least 250ms before returning an error.
* Retry interval guideline:
* No minimum < Retry Interval < No maximum
* (recommend 10ms)
*/
end = ktime_get();
elapsed_ms = ktime_to_ms(ktime_sub(end, start));
if (elapsed_ms >= DEV_PECI_RETRY_TIME_MS) {
dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "Timeout retrying xfer!\n");
rc = -ETIMEDOUT;
break;
}
usleep_range(DEV_PECI_RETRY_INTERVAL_MS * 1000,
(DEV_PECI_RETRY_INTERVAL_MS * 1000) + 1000);
quoted
+static int peci_scan_cmd_mask(struct peci_adapter *adapter) +{ + struct peci_xfer_msg msg; + u32 dib; + int rc = 0; + + /* Update command mask just once */ + if (adapter->cmd_mask & BIT(PECI_CMD_PING)) + return 0; + + msg.addr = PECI_BASE_ADDR; + msg.tx_len = GET_DIB_WR_LEN; + msg.rx_len = GET_DIB_RD_LEN; + msg.tx_buf[0] = GET_DIB_PECI_CMD; + + rc = peci_xfer(adapter, &msg); + if (rc < 0) { + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "PECI xfer error, rc : %d\n", rc); + return rc; + } + + dib = msg.rx_buf[0] | (msg.rx_buf[1] << 8) | + (msg.rx_buf[2] << 16) | (msg.rx_buf[3] << 24); + + /* Check special case for Get DIB command */ + if (dib == 0x00) { + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "DIB read as 0x00\n"); + return -1; + } + + if (!rc) { + /** + * setting up the supporting commands based on minor rev# + * see PECI Spec Table 3-1 + */ + dib = (dib >> 8) & 0xF; + + if (dib >= 0x1) { + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_RD_PKG_CFG); + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_WR_PKG_CFG); + } + + if (dib >= 0x2) + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_RD_IA_MSR); + + if (dib >= 0x3) { + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_RD_PCI_CFG_LOCAL); + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_WR_PCI_CFG_LOCAL); + } + + if (dib >= 0x4) + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_RD_PCI_CFG); + + if (dib >= 0x5) + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_WR_PCI_CFG); + + if (dib >= 0x6) + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_WR_IA_MSR);Lots of magic numbers here. Can they be replaced with #defines. Also, it looks like a switch statement could be used, with fall through.
I agree. Will rewrite it.
quoted
+ + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_GET_TEMP); + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_GET_DIB); + adapter->cmd_mask |= BIT(PECI_CMD_PING); + } else { + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "Error reading DIB, rc : %d\n", rc); + } + + return rc; +} +quoted
+static int peci_ioctl_get_temp(struct peci_adapter *adapter, void *vmsg) +{ + struct peci_get_temp_msg *umsg = vmsg; + struct peci_xfer_msg msg; + int rc; +Is this getting the temperature?
Yes, this is getting the 'die' temperature of a processor package.
quoted
+ rc = peci_cmd_support(adapter, PECI_CMD_GET_TEMP); + if (rc < 0) + return rc; + + msg.addr = umsg->addr; + msg.tx_len = GET_TEMP_WR_LEN; + msg.rx_len = GET_TEMP_RD_LEN; + msg.tx_buf[0] = GET_TEMP_PECI_CMD; + + rc = peci_xfer(adapter, &msg); + if (rc < 0) + return rc; + + umsg->temp_raw = msg.rx_buf[0] | (msg.rx_buf[1] << 8); + + return 0; +}quoted
+static long peci_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int iocmd, unsigned long arg) +{ + struct peci_adapter *adapter = file->private_data; + void __user *argp = (void __user *)arg; + unsigned int msg_len; + enum peci_cmd cmd; + u8 *msg; + int rc = 0; + + dev_dbg(&adapter->dev, "ioctl, cmd=0x%x, arg=0x%lx\n", iocmd, arg); + + switch (iocmd) { + case PECI_IOC_PING: + case PECI_IOC_GET_DIB: + case PECI_IOC_GET_TEMP: + case PECI_IOC_RD_PKG_CFG: + case PECI_IOC_WR_PKG_CFG: + case PECI_IOC_RD_IA_MSR: + case PECI_IOC_RD_PCI_CFG: + case PECI_IOC_RD_PCI_CFG_LOCAL: + case PECI_IOC_WR_PCI_CFG_LOCAL: + cmd = _IOC_TYPE(iocmd) - PECI_IOC_BASE; + msg_len = _IOC_SIZE(iocmd); + break;Adding new ioctl calls is pretty frowned up. Can you export this info via /sysfs?
Most of these are not simple IOs so ioctl is better suited, I think.
Also, should there be some permission checks here? Or is any user allowed to call these ioctls?
I agree. I will add some permission checks here.
Andrew
Thanks a lot, Jae