Re: [PATCH 06/14] peci: Add core infrastructure

Williams, Dan J
2021-07-14T17:19:06Z

On Tue, 2021-07-13 at 00:04 +0200, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> Intel processors provide access for various services designed to support
> processor and DRAM thermal management, platform manageability and
> processor interface tuning and diagnostics.
> Those services are available via the Platform Environment Control
> Interface (PECI) that provides a communication channel between the
> processor and the Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) or other
> platform management device.
>
> This change introduces PECI subsystem by adding the initial core module
> and API for controller drivers.
>
> Co-developed-by: Jason M Bills <jason.m.bills@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jason M Bills <jason.m.bills@linux.intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  MAINTAINERS             |   9 +++
>  drivers/Kconfig         |   3 +
>  drivers/Makefile        |   1 +
>  drivers/peci/Kconfig    |  14 ++++
>  drivers/peci/Makefile   |   5 ++
>  drivers/peci/core.c     | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/peci/internal.h |  20 +++++
>  drivers/peci/sysfs.c    |  48 ++++++++++++
>  include/linux/peci.h    |  82 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  9 files changed, 348 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/peci/Kconfig
>  create mode 100644 drivers/peci/Makefile
>  create mode 100644 drivers/peci/core.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/peci/internal.h
>  create mode 100644 drivers/peci/sysfs.c
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/peci.h
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 6f77aaca2a30..47411e2b6336 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -14495,6 +14495,15 @@ L:     platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org
>  S:     Maintained
>  F:     drivers/platform/x86/peaq-wmi.c
>
> +PECI SUBSYSTEM
> +M:     Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska@intel.com>
> +R:     Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>
> +L:     openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
> +S:     Supported
> +F:     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/peci/
> +F:     drivers/peci/
> +F:     include/linux/peci.h
> +
>  PENSANDO ETHERNET DRIVERS
>  M:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@pensando.io>
>  M:     drivers@pensando.io
> diff --git a/drivers/Kconfig b/drivers/Kconfig
> index 8bad63417a50..f472b3d972b3 100644
> --- a/drivers/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/Kconfig
> @@ -236,4 +236,7 @@ source "drivers/interconnect/Kconfig"
>  source "drivers/counter/Kconfig"
>
>  source "drivers/most/Kconfig"
> +
> +source "drivers/peci/Kconfig"
> +
>  endmenu
> diff --git a/drivers/Makefile b/drivers/Makefile
> index 27c018bdf4de..8d96f0c3dde5 100644
> --- a/drivers/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/Makefile
> @@ -189,3 +189,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_GNSS)          += gnss/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_INTERCONNECT)     += interconnect/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COUNTER)          += counter/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_MOST)             += most/
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PECI)             += peci/
> diff --git a/drivers/peci/Kconfig b/drivers/peci/Kconfig
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..601cc3c3c852
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/peci/Kconfig
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +
> +menuconfig PECI
> +       tristate "PECI support"
> +       help
> +         The Platform Environment Control Interface (PECI) is an interface
> +         that provides a communication channel to Intel processors and
> +         chipset components from external monitoring or control devices.
> +
> +         If you want PECI support, you should say Y here and also to the
> +         specific driver for your bus adapter(s) below.

The user is reading this help text to decide if they want PECI
support, so clarifying that if they want PECI support they should turn
it on is not all that helpful. I would say "If you are building a
kernel for a Board Management Controller (BMC) say Y. If unsure say
N".

> +
> +         This support is also available as a module. If so, the module
> +         will be called peci.
> diff --git a/drivers/peci/Makefile b/drivers/peci/Makefile
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..2bb2f51bcda7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/peci/Makefile
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +
> +# Core functionality
> +peci-y := core.o sysfs.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PECI) += peci.o
> diff --git a/drivers/peci/core.c b/drivers/peci/core.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..0ad00110459d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/peci/core.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +// Copyright (c) 2018-2021 Intel Corporation
> +
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> +
> +#include <linux/bug.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/export.h>
> +#include <linux/idr.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/peci.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> +#include <linux/property.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#include "internal.h"
> +
> +static DEFINE_IDA(peci_controller_ida);
> +
> +static void peci_controller_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       struct peci_controller *controller = to_peci_controller(dev);
> +
> +       mutex_destroy(&controller->bus_lock);
> +}
> +
> +struct device_type peci_controller_type = {
> +       .release        = peci_controller_dev_release,
> +};

I have not read further than patch 6 in this set, so I'm hoping there
is an explanation for this. As it stands it looks like a red flag that
the release function is not actually releasing anything?

> +
> +int peci_controller_scan_devices(struct peci_controller *controller)
> +{
> +       /* Just a stub, no support for actual devices yet */
> +       return 0;
> +}

Move this to the patch where it is needed.

> +
> +/**
> + * peci_controller_add() - Add PECI controller
> + * @controller: the PECI controller to be added
> + * @parent: device object to be registered as a parent
> + *
> + * In final stage of its probe(), peci_controller driver should include calling

s/should include calling/calls/

> + * peci_controller_add() to register itself with the PECI bus.
> + * The caller is responsible for allocating the struct peci_controller and
> + * managing its lifetime, calling peci_controller_remove() prior to releasing
> + * the allocation.
> + *
> + * It returns zero on success, else a negative error code (dropping the
> + * controller's refcount). After a successful return, the caller is responsible
> + * for calling peci_controller_remove().
> + *
> + * Return: 0 if succeeded, other values in case errors.
> + */
> +int peci_controller_add(struct peci_controller *controller, struct device *parent)
> +{
> +       struct fwnode_handle *node = fwnode_handle_get(dev_fwnode(parent));
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       if (WARN_ON(!controller->xfer))

Why WARN()? What is 'xfer', and what is likelihood the caller forgets
to set it? For something critical like this the WARN is likely
overkill.

> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
> +       ret = ida_alloc_max(&peci_controller_ida, U8_MAX, GFP_KERNEL);

An '_add' function should just add, this seems to be doing more
"alloc". Speaking of which is there a peci_controller_alloc()?

> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       controller->id = ret;
> +
> +       mutex_init(&controller->bus_lock);
> +
> +       controller->dev.parent = parent;
> +       controller->dev.bus = &peci_bus_type;
> +       controller->dev.type = &peci_controller_type;
> +       controller->dev.fwnode = node;
> +       controller->dev.of_node = to_of_node(node);
> +
> +       ret = dev_set_name(&controller->dev, "peci-%d", controller->id);
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto err_id;
> +
> +       ret = device_register(&controller->dev);
> +       if (ret)
> +               goto err_put;
> +
> +       pm_runtime_no_callbacks(&controller->dev);
> +       pm_suspend_ignore_children(&controller->dev, true);
> +       pm_runtime_enable(&controller->dev);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Ignoring retval since failures during scan are non-critical for
> +        * controller itself.
> +        */
> +       peci_controller_scan_devices(controller);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +
> +err_put:
> +       put_device(&controller->dev);
> +err_id:
> +       fwnode_handle_put(controller->dev.fwnode);
> +       ida_free(&peci_controller_ida, controller->id);

I'd expect these to be released by ->release().

> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(peci_controller_add, PECI);

I think it's cleaner to declare symbol namespaces in the Makefile. In
this case, add:

cflags-y += -DDEFAULT_SYMBOL_NAMESPACE=PECI

...and just use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as normal in the C file.

> +
> +static int _unregister(struct device *dev, void *dummy)
> +{
> +       /* Just a stub, no support for actual devices yet */

At least for me, I think it wastes review time to consider empty stubs. Just add the
whole thing back when it's actually used so it can be reviewed
properly for suitability.

> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * peci_controller_remove - Delete PECI controller
> + * @controller: the PECI controller to be removed
> + *
> + * This call is used only by PECI controller drivers, which are the only ones
> + * directly touching chip registers.
> + *
> + * Note that this function also drops a reference to the controller.
> + */
> +void peci_controller_remove(struct peci_controller *controller)
> +{
> +       pm_runtime_disable(&controller->dev);
> +       /*
> +        * 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);

How does the peci_controller_remove() get called with children still
beneath it? Can that possibility be precluded by arranging for
children to be removed first?

For example, given peci_controller_add is called from another's driver
probe routine, this unregistration could be handled by a devm action.

> +
> +       device_unregister(&controller->dev);
> +       fwnode_handle_put(controller->dev.fwnode);
> +       ida_free(&peci_controller_ida, controller->id);

Another open coded copy of release code that belongs in ->release()?

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(peci_controller_remove, PECI);
> +
> +struct bus_type peci_bus_type = {
> +       .name           = "peci",
> +       .bus_groups     = peci_bus_groups,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init peci_init(void)
> +{
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       ret = bus_register(&peci_bus_type);
> +       if (ret < 0) {
> +               pr_err("failed to register PECI bus type!\n");
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(peci_init);

You can't have subsys_initcall in a module. If you actually need
subsys_initcall then this can't be a module. Are you sure this can't
be module_init()?

> +
> +static void __exit peci_exit(void)
> +{
> +       bus_unregister(&peci_bus_type);
> +}
> +module_exit(peci_exit);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Jason M Bills <jason.m.bills@linux.intel.com>");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>");
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska@intel.com>");

Is MAINTAINERS sufficient? Do you all want to be contacted by end
users, or just kernel developers. If it's the former then keep this,
if it's the latter then MAINTAINERS is sufficient.

> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PECI bus core module");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> diff --git a/drivers/peci/internal.h b/drivers/peci/internal.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..80c61bcdfc6b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/peci/internal.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/* Copyright (c) 2018-2021 Intel Corporation */
> +
> +#ifndef __PECI_INTERNAL_H
> +#define __PECI_INTERNAL_H
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> +struct peci_controller;
> +struct attribute_group;
> +
> +extern struct bus_type peci_bus_type;
> +extern const struct attribute_group *peci_bus_groups[];
> +
> +extern struct device_type peci_controller_type;
> +
> +int peci_controller_scan_devices(struct peci_controller *controller);
> +
> +#endif /* __PECI_INTERNAL_H */
> diff --git a/drivers/peci/sysfs.c b/drivers/peci/sysfs.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..36c5e2a18a92
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/peci/sysfs.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +// Copyright (c) 2021 Intel Corporation
> +
> +#include <linux/peci.h>
> +
> +#include "internal.h"
> +
> +static int rescan_controller(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> +       if (dev->type != &peci_controller_type)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       return peci_controller_scan_devices(to_peci_controller(dev));
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t rescan_store(struct bus_type *bus, const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> +       bool res;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       ret = kstrtobool(buf, &res);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       if (!res)
> +               return count;
> +
> +       ret = bus_for_each_dev(&peci_bus_type, NULL, NULL, rescan_controller);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       return count;
> +}
> +static BUS_ATTR_WO(rescan);

No Documentation/ABI entry for this attribute, which means I'm not
sure if it's suitable because it's unreviewable what it actually does
reviewing this patch as a standalone.

> +
> +static struct attribute *peci_bus_attrs[] = {
> +       &bus_attr_rescan.attr,
> +       NULL
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group peci_bus_group = {
> +       .attrs = peci_bus_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +const struct attribute_group *peci_bus_groups[] = {
> +       &peci_bus_group,
> +       NULL
> +};
> diff --git a/include/linux/peci.h b/include/linux/peci.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..cdf3008321fd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/peci.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/* Copyright (c) 2018-2021 Intel Corporation */
> +
> +#ifndef __LINUX_PECI_H
> +#define __LINUX_PECI_H
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +
> +struct peci_request;
> +
> +/**
> + * struct peci_controller - PECI controller
> + * @dev: device object to register PECI controller to the device model
> + * @xfer: PECI transfer function
> + * @bus_lock: lock used to protect multiple callers
> + * @id: PECI controller ID
> + *
> + * PECI controllers usually connect to their drivers using non-PECI bus,
> + * such as the platform bus.
> + * Each PECI controller can communicate with one or more PECI devices.
> + */
> +struct peci_controller {
> +       struct device dev;
> +       int (*xfer)(struct peci_controller *controller, u8 addr, struct peci_request *req);

Each device will have a different way to do a PECI transfer?

I thought PECI was a standard...

> +       struct mutex bus_lock; /* held for the duration of xfer */

What is it actually locking? For example, there is a mantra that goes
"lock data, not code", and this comment seems to imply that no specific
data is being locked.

> +       u8 id;

No possible way to have more than 256 controllers per system?

> +};
> +
> +int peci_controller_add(struct peci_controller *controller, struct device *parent);
> +void peci_controller_remove(struct peci_controller *controller);
> +
> +static inline struct peci_controller *to_peci_controller(void *d)
> +{
> +       return container_of(d, struct peci_controller, dev);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * struct peci_device - PECI device
> + * @dev: device object to register PECI device to the device model
> + * @controller: manages the bus segment hosting this PECI device
> + * @addr: address used on the PECI bus connected to the parent controller
> + *
> + * A peci_device identifies a single device (i.e. CPU) connected to a PECI bus.
> + * The behaviour exposed to the rest of the system is defined by the PECI driver
> + * managing the device.
> + */
> +struct peci_device {
> +       struct device dev;
> +       struct peci_controller *controller;

Is the device a child of the controller? If yes, then no need for a a
separate pointer vs "to_peci_controller(peci_dev->parent)"