Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] arm64: dts: qcom: Add the Inline Crypto Engine nodes

Abel Vesa
2023-03-10T09:38:13Z

On 23-03-10 10:27:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/03/2023 10:21, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>>>> compatible = "qcom,sdm630-sdhci", "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
> >>>>> reg = <0x0c0c4000 0x1000>,
> >>>>> - <0x0c0c5000 0x1000>,
> >>>>> - <0x0c0c8000 0x8000>;
> >>>>> - reg-names = "hc", "cqhci", "ice";
> >>>>> + <0x0c0c5000 0x1000>;
> >>>>> + reg-names = "hc", "cqhci";
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe this will break the ICE on these platforms without valid
> >>>> reason. The commit msg does not explain why you do it or why this is
> >>>> necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> We already we received comment that we keep breaking Qualcomm platforms
> >>>> all the time and need to keep them in some shape.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, patchset is non-applicable in current set (breaks users) and
> >>>> neither commit nor cover letter mentions it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, I tested this patchset on SDA845, and ICE continues to work fine.
> >>
> >> Really? I clearly see of_find_device_by_node -> "return NULL" and all
> >> old code gone, so ABI is broken. Are you sure you applied patch 1-6 and
> >> ICE was working?
> >
> > of_qcom_ice_get will return the ICE instance if the consumer node has a
> > qcom,ice property with a phandle for the ICE devicetree node.
>
> When patches 1-6 are applied, there is no qcom,ice property in DTS. Thus
> I don't consider the test as correct... Even if we skip entire ABI
> discussion the patchset is non-bisectable thus the test was failing to
> detect even that.

Yeah, but that could've been solved easily like I explained yesterday on
irc. But that's not worth getting into anymore as I'll keep legacy working as
I explained.

>
> > It will
> > return NULL otherwise. SDA845 has such ICE node added by this patch,
> > therefore, it will work. All platforms that have such node will work
> > functionally like before. But I'll take care of the legacy approach as
> > well in v3 (see below).
>
> At point of patch 6 none of nodes have it. That's the entire point of
> bisectability.
>
> What's more, if you reverse code and makes DTS patches before driver
> hoping to fix bisectability - do you see ICE working on existing
> platforms? I don't think it so...
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> (Though if I understand the patchset correctly, the ICE clock is no longer
> >>> turned off when the UFS host controller is suspended. That isn't ideal as it
> >>> wastes power. I would like that to be fixed.)
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, when you say "break the ICE", do you really mean "make an incompatible
> >>> change to the device-tree bindings"?
> >>
> >> It breaks existing users of DTS and kernel.
> >
> > I assume you mean it breaks if someone is using old approach DTS with a
> > kernel that would have ICE driver merged. Yes, that it does. And for
> > that, in the v3, I'll make of_qcom_ice_get check if there is a reg entry
> > with name "ice" and create an ICE instance but for the same dev as the
> > consumer driver. OTOH, if there is no reg entry called "ice", it will
> > look up a device based on phande of qcom,ice property. This will allow
> > legacy style DTS to work fine, while using the unified driver as a
> > library, in that case. For newer platforms, the recommended approach
> > will be to add a new ICE node and use qcom,ice property.
>
> For the driver this sounds good. I still think that existing (older) DTS
> should not have regs removed, because this affects other users of kernel
> DTS.

Yes, that's what I meant, the already supported platforms will remain
with ice reg in the consumer node.

>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>