diff mbox series

[v3,06/13] peci: Add device detection

Message ID 20211115182552.3830849-7-iwona.winiarska@intel.com
State New
Headers show
Series Introduce PECI subsystem | expand

Commit Message

Winiarska, Iwona Nov. 15, 2021, 6:25 p.m. UTC
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 <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/peci/Makefile   |   2 +-
 drivers/peci/core.c     |  33 ++++++++++++
 drivers/peci/device.c   | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/peci/internal.h |  14 +++++
 drivers/peci/request.c  |  55 +++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 220 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/peci/device.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/peci/request.c

Comments

gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Nov. 15, 2021, 6:49 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
> +{
> +	bool killed;
> +
> +	device_lock(&device->dev);
> +	killed = kill_device(&device->dev);

Eeek, why call this?

> +	device_unlock(&device->dev);
> +
> +	if (!killed)
> +		return;

What happened if something changed after you unlocked it?

Why is kill_device() required at all?  That's a very rare function to
call, and one that only one "bus" calls today because it is very
special (i.e. crazy and broken...)

thanks,

greg k-h
Winiarska, Iwona Nov. 15, 2021, 10:35 p.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 19:49 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
> > +{
> > +       bool killed;
> > +
> > +       device_lock(&device->dev);
> > +       killed = kill_device(&device->dev);
> 
> Eeek, why call this?
> 
> > +       device_unlock(&device->dev);
> > +
> > +       if (!killed)
> > +               return;
> 
> What happened if something changed after you unlocked it?

We either killed it, or the other caller killed it.

> 
> Why is kill_device() required at all?  That's a very rare function to
> call, and one that only one "bus" calls today because it is very
> special (i.e. crazy and broken...)

It's used to avoid double-delete in case of races between peci_controller
unregister and "manually" removing the device using sysfs (pointed out by Dan in
v2). We're calling peci_device_destroy() in both callsites.
Other way to solve it would be to just have a peci-specific lock, but
kill_device seemed to be well suited for the problem at hand.
Do you suggest to remove it and just go with the lock?

Thanks
-Iwona

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Nov. 16, 2021, 6:26 a.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:35:23PM +0000, Winiarska, Iwona wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 19:49 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > > +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
> > > +{
> > > +       bool killed;
> > > +
> > > +       device_lock(&device->dev);
> > > +       killed = kill_device(&device->dev);
> > 
> > Eeek, why call this?
> > 
> > > +       device_unlock(&device->dev);
> > > +
> > > +       if (!killed)
> > > +               return;
> > 
> > What happened if something changed after you unlocked it?
> 
> We either killed it, or the other caller killed it.
> 
> > 
> > Why is kill_device() required at all?  That's a very rare function to
> > call, and one that only one "bus" calls today because it is very
> > special (i.e. crazy and broken...)
> 
> It's used to avoid double-delete in case of races between peci_controller
> unregister and "manually" removing the device using sysfs (pointed out by Dan in
> v2). We're calling peci_device_destroy() in both callsites.
> Other way to solve it would be to just have a peci-specific lock, but
> kill_device seemed to be well suited for the problem at hand.
> Do you suggest to remove it and just go with the lock?

Yes please, remove it and use the lock.

Also, why are you required to have a sysfs file that can remove the
device?  Who wants that?

thanks,

greg k-h
Winiarska, Iwona Nov. 17, 2021, 11:19 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 07:26 +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 10:35:23PM +0000, Winiarska, Iwona wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 19:49 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > > > +void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       bool killed;
> > > > +
> > > > +       device_lock(&device->dev);
> > > > +       killed = kill_device(&device->dev);
> > > 
> > > Eeek, why call this?
> > > 
> > > > +       device_unlock(&device->dev);
> > > > +
> > > > +       if (!killed)
> > > > +               return;
> > > 
> > > What happened if something changed after you unlocked it?
> > 
> > We either killed it, or the other caller killed it.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Why is kill_device() required at all?  That's a very rare function to
> > > call, and one that only one "bus" calls today because it is very
> > > special (i.e. crazy and broken...)
> > 
> > It's used to avoid double-delete in case of races between peci_controller
> > unregister and "manually" removing the device using sysfs (pointed out by Dan
> > in
> > v2). We're calling peci_device_destroy() in both callsites.
> > Other way to solve it would be to just have a peci-specific lock, but
> > kill_device seemed to be well suited for the problem at hand.
> > Do you suggest to remove it and just go with the lock?
> 
> Yes please, remove it and use the lock.

Ack.

> 
> Also, why are you required to have a sysfs file that can remove the
> device?  Who wants that?

From the following patch:

"PECI devices may not be discoverable at the time when PECI controller is
being added (e.g. BMC can boot up when the Host system is still in S5).
Since we currently don't have the capabilities to figure out the Host
system state inside the PECI subsystem itself, we have to rely on
userspace to do it for us."

That's about rescan, but userspace might also want to remove the devices e.g.
when Host goes into S5.
It's also useful for development and debug purposes (and also allows us to have
a nice bit of symmetry with rescan).

Thanks
-Iwona

> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --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 drivers
diff --git a/drivers/peci/core.c b/drivers/peci/core.c
index 73ad0a47fa9d..c3361e6e043a 100644
--- a/drivers/peci/core.c
+++ b/drivers/peci/core.c
@@ -29,6 +29,20 @@  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)
 {
@@ -64,10 +78,23 @@  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);
 
 	fwnode_handle_put(controller->dev.fwnode);
@@ -113,6 +140,12 @@  struct peci_controller *devm_peci_controller_add(struct device *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_fwnode:
diff --git a/drivers/peci/device.c b/drivers/peci/device.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..39f7f6409391
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/peci/device.c
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ 
+// 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)
+{
+	/*
+	 * 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 };
+	int ret;
+
+	mutex_lock(&controller->bus_lock);
+	ret = controller->ops->xfer(controller, addr, &req);
+	mutex_unlock(&controller->bus_lock);
+
+	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 (!peci_addr_valid(addr))
+		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_initialize(&device->dev);
+
+	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->addr);
+	if (ret)
+		goto err_put;
+
+	ret = device_add(&device->dev);
+	if (ret)
+		goto err_put;
+
+	return 0;
+
+err_put:
+	put_device(&device->dev);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+void peci_device_destroy(struct peci_device *device)
+{
+	bool killed;
+
+	device_lock(&device->dev);
+	killed = kill_device(&device->dev);
+	device_unlock(&device->dev);
+
+	if (!killed)
+		return;
+
+	device_unregister(&device->dev);
+}
+
+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..7dee51c50dd2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/peci/request.c
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ 
+// 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 success or NULL otherwise.
+ */
+struct peci_request *peci_request_alloc(struct peci_device *device, u8 tx_len, u8 rx_len)
+{
+	struct peci_request *req;
+
+	/*
+	 * TX and RX buffers are fixed length members of peci_request, this is
+	 * just a warn for developers to make sure to expand the buffers (or
+	 * change the allocation method) if we go over the current limit.
+	 */
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(tx_len > PECI_REQUEST_MAX_BUF_SIZE || rx_len > PECI_REQUEST_MAX_BUF_SIZE))
+		return NULL;
+	/*
+	 * PECI controllers that we are using now don't support DMA, this
+	 * should be converted to DMA API once support for controllers that do
+	 * allow it is added to avoid an extra copy.
+	 */
+	req = kzalloc(sizeof(*req), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!req)
+		return NULL;
+
+	req->device = device;
+	req->tx.len = tx_len;
+	req->rx.len = rx_len;
+
+	return req;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(peci_request_alloc, PECI);
+
+/**
+ * peci_request_free() - free peci_request
+ * @req: the PECI request to be freed
+ */
+void peci_request_free(struct peci_request *req)
+{
+	kfree(req);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(peci_request_free, PECI);