Re: [PATCH -next 4/4] ipmi: kcs_bmc_aspeed: add clock control logic

[Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/1/2021 8:28 PM, Joel Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 03:16, ChiaWei Wang <chiawei_wang@aspeedtech.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jae,
>>
>>> From: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org> On
>>>
>>> From: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> If LPC KCS driver is registered ahead of lpc-ctrl module, LPC KCS block will be
>>> enabled without heart beating of LCLK until lpc-ctrl enables the LCLK. This
>>> issue causes improper handling on host interrupts when the host sends
>>> interrupts in that time frame.
>>> Then kernel eventually forcibly disables the interrupt with dumping stack and
>>> printing a 'nobody cared this irq' message out.
>>>
>>> To prevent this issue, all LPC sub drivers should enable LCLK individually so this
>>> patch adds clock control logic into the LPC KCS driver.
>>
>> Have all LPC sub drivers could result in entire LPC block down if any of them disables the clock (e.g. driver unload).
>> The LPC devices such as SIO can be used before kernel booting, even without any BMC firmware.
>> Thereby, we recommend to make LCLK critical or guarded by protected clock instead of having all LPC sub drivers hold the LCLK control.
>>
>> The previous discussion for your reference:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/28/153
> 
> Please read the entire thread. The conclusion:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACPK8XdBmkhZ8mcSFmDAFV8k7Qj7ajBL8TVKfK8c+5aneUMHZw@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> That is, for the devices that have a driver loaded can enable the
> clock. When they are unloaded, they will reduce the reference count
> until the last driver is unloaded. eg:
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/clk/clk.c#L945
> 
> There was another fork to the thread, where we suggested that a
> protected clocks binding could be added:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/160269577311.884498.8429245140509326318@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com/
> 
> If you wish to use this mechanism for eg. SIO clocks, then I encourage
> Aspeed to submit a patch to do that.

We are revisiting the aged discussion. Thanks for bringing it back.

I agree with Joel that a clock should be enabled only on systems that
need the clock actually so it should be configurable by a device driver
or through device tree setting, not by the static setting in
clk-ast2600.c code. So that's the reason why I stopped upstreaming below
change for making BCLK as a critical clock.

https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-clk/msg44836.html

Instead, I submitted these two changes to make it configurable through
device tree setting.

https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-aspeed/2020-January/003394.html
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linux-aspeed/2020-January/003339.html

But these were not accepted too.

And recently, Samuel introduced a better and more generic way.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200903040015.5627-2-samuel@sholland.org/

But it's not accepted yet either.


Chiawei,

Please refine the mechanism and submit a change to make SIO clocks
configurable through device tree setting. I believe that we can keep
this patch series even with the change, or it can be modified and
adjusted if needed after the SIO clocks fix is accepted.

Thanks,
Jae

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel