Re: [PATCH v2 08/15] peci: Add device detection
From: "Winiarska, Iwona" <iwona.winiarska@intel.com>
Date: 2021-11-16 00:11:21
Also in:
linux-aspeed, linux-devicetree, linux-doc, linux-hwmon, lkml, openbmc
On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 12:01 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 4:35 AM Iwona Winiarska [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Since PECI devices are discoverable, we can dynamically detect devices that are actually available in the system. This change complements the earlier implementation by rescanning PECI bus to detect available devices. For this purpose, it also introduces the minimal API for PECI requests. Signed-off-by: Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <redacted> --- drivers/peci/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/peci/core.c | 33 ++++++++++++ drivers/peci/device.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/peci/internal.h | 14 +++++ drivers/peci/request.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 212 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 drivers/peci/device.c create mode 100644 drivers/peci/request.cdiff --git a/drivers/peci/Makefile b/drivers/peci/Makefile index 926d8df15cbd..c5f9d3fe21bb 100644 --- a/drivers/peci/Makefile +++ b/drivers/peci/Makefile@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only # Core functionality -peci-y := core.o +peci-y := core.o request.o device.o obj-$(CONFIG_PECI) += peci.o # Hardware specific bus driversdiff --git a/drivers/peci/core.c b/drivers/peci/core.c index 7b3938af0396..d143f1a7fe98 100644 --- a/drivers/peci/core.c +++ b/drivers/peci/core.c@@ -34,6 +34,20 @@ struct device_type peci_controller_type = {.release = peci_controller_dev_release, }; +static int peci_controller_scan_devices(struct peci_controller *controller) +{ + int ret; + u8 addr; + + for (addr = PECI_BASE_ADDR; addr < PECI_BASE_ADDR + PECI_DEVICE_NUM_MAX; addr++) { + ret = peci_device_create(controller, addr); + if (ret) + return ret; + } + + return 0; +} + static struct peci_controller *peci_controller_alloc(struct device *dev, struct peci_controller_ops *ops) {@@ -76,10 +90,23 @@ static struct peci_controller*peci_controller_alloc(struct device *dev, return ERR_PTR(ret); } +static int unregister_child(struct device *dev, void *dummy) +{ + peci_device_destroy(to_peci_device(dev)); + + return 0; +} + static void unregister_controller(void *_controller) { struct peci_controller *controller = _controller; + /* + * Detach any active PECI devices. This can't fail, thus we do not + * check the returned value. + */ + device_for_each_child_reverse(&controller->dev, NULL, unregister_child); + device_unregister(&controller->dev); }@@ -115,6 +142,12 @@ struct peci_controller *devm_peci_controller_add(structdevice *dev, if (ret) return ERR_PTR(ret); + /* + * Ignoring retval since failures during scan are non-critical for + * controller itself. + */ + peci_controller_scan_devices(controller); + return controller; err:diff --git a/drivers/peci/device.c b/drivers/peci/device.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..32811248997b --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/peci/device.c@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +// Copyright (c) 2018-2021 Intel Corporation + +#include <linux/peci.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + +#include "internal.h" + +static int peci_detect(struct peci_controller *controller, u8 addr) +{ + struct peci_request *req; + int ret; + + /* + * PECI Ping is a command encoded by tx_len = 0, rx_len = 0. + * We expect correct Write FCS if the device at the target address + * is able to respond. + */ + req = peci_request_alloc(NULL, 0, 0); + if (!req) + return -ENOMEM;Seems a waste to do a heap allocation for this routine. Why not: /* * PECI Ping is a command encoded by tx_len = 0, rx_len = 0. * We expect correct Write FCS if the device at the target address * is able to respond. */ struct peci_request req = { 0 };
Done.
quoted
+ + mutex_lock(&controller->bus_lock); + ret = controller->ops->xfer(controller, addr, req); + mutex_unlock(&controller->bus_lock); + + peci_request_free(req); + + return ret; +} + +static bool peci_addr_valid(u8 addr) +{ + return addr >= PECI_BASE_ADDR && addr < PECI_BASE_ADDR + PECI_DEVICE_NUM_MAX; +} + +static int peci_dev_exists(struct device *dev, void *data) +{ + struct peci_device *device = to_peci_device(dev); + u8 *addr = data; + + if (device->addr == *addr) + return -EBUSY; + + return 0; +} + +int peci_device_create(struct peci_controller *controller, u8 addr) +{ + struct peci_device *device; + int ret; + + if (WARN_ON(!peci_addr_valid(addr)))The WARN_ON is overkill, especially as there is only one caller of this and it loops through valid addresses.
Done.
quoted
+ return -EINVAL; + + /* Check if we have already detected this device before. */ + ret = device_for_each_child(&controller->dev, &addr, peci_dev_exists); + if (ret) + return 0; + + ret = peci_detect(controller, addr); + if (ret) { + /* + * Device not present or host state doesn't allow successful + * detection at this time. + */ + if (ret == -EIO || ret == -ETIMEDOUT) + return 0; + + return ret; + } + + device = kzalloc(sizeof(*device), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!device) + return -ENOMEM; + + device->addr = addr; + device->dev.parent = &controller->dev; + device->dev.bus = &peci_bus_type; + device->dev.type = &peci_device_type; + + ret = dev_set_name(&device->dev, "%d-%02x", controller->id, device-quoted
addr);+ if (ret) + goto err_free;It's cleaner to just have one unified error exit using put_device(). Use the device_initialize() + device_add() pattern, not device_register().
Done.
quoted
+ + ret = device_register(&device->dev); + if (ret) + goto err_put; + + return 0; + +err_put: + put_device(&device->dev); +err_free: + kfree(device); + + return ret; +} + +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device) +{ + device_unregister(&device->dev);No clear value for this wrapper, in fact in one caller it causes it to do a to_peci_device() just this helper can undo that up-cast.
It gains value after extending it with kill_device().
quoted
+} + +static void peci_device_release(struct device *dev) +{ + struct peci_device *device = to_peci_device(dev); + + kfree(device); +} + +struct device_type peci_device_type = { + .release = peci_device_release, +};diff --git a/drivers/peci/internal.h b/drivers/peci/internal.h index 918dea745a86..57d11a902c5d 100644 --- a/drivers/peci/internal.h +++ b/drivers/peci/internal.h@@ -8,6 +8,20 @@#include <linux/types.h> struct peci_controller; +struct peci_device; +struct peci_request; + +/* PECI CPU address range 0x30-0x37 */ +#define PECI_BASE_ADDR 0x30 +#define PECI_DEVICE_NUM_MAX 8 + +struct peci_request *peci_request_alloc(struct peci_device *device, u8 tx_len, u8 rx_len); +void peci_request_free(struct peci_request *req); + +extern struct device_type peci_device_type; + +int peci_device_create(struct peci_controller *controller, u8 addr); +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device); extern struct bus_type peci_bus_type;diff --git a/drivers/peci/request.c b/drivers/peci/request.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..81b567bc7b87 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/peci/request.c@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +// Copyright (c) 2021 Intel Corporation + +#include <linux/export.h> +#include <linux/peci.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/types.h> + +#include "internal.h" + +/** + * peci_request_alloc() - allocate &struct peci_requests + * @device: PECI device to which request is going to be sent + * @tx_len: TX length + * @rx_len: RX length + * + * Return: A pointer to a newly allocated &struct peci_request on successor NULL otherwise. + */ +struct peci_request *peci_request_alloc(struct peci_device *device, u8 tx_len, u8 rx_len) +{ + struct peci_request *req; + + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tx_len > PECI_REQUEST_MAX_BUF_SIZE || rx_len > PECI_REQUEST_MAX_BUF_SIZE))WARN_ON_ONCE() should only be here to help other kernel developers not make this mistake However, another way to enforce this is to stop exporting peci_request_alloc() and instead export helpers for specific command types, and keep this detail internal to the core. If you keep this, it needs a comment that it is only here to warn other peci-client developers of their bug before it goes upstream.
Added comment. Thanks -Iwona _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel