public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>
Cc: lee.jones@linaro.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com,
	mgross@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	Mark Gross <markgross@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/6] platform/x86/intel: Move intel_pmt from MFD to Auxiliary Bus
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:27:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YbeQpyIijHbPHktN@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211213175921.1897860-4-david.e.box@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:59:18AM -0800, David E. Box wrote:
> Intel Platform Monitoring Technology (PMT) support is indicated by presence
> of an Intel defined PCIe Designated Vendor Specific Extended Capabilities
> (DVSEC) structure with a PMT specific ID. The current MFD implementation
> creates child devices for each PMT feature, currently telemetry, watcher,
> and crashlog. However DVSEC structures may also be used by Intel to
> indicate support for other features. The Out Of Band Management Services
> Module (OOBMSM) uses DVSEC to enumerate several features, including PMT.
> In order to support them it is necessary to modify the intel_pmt driver to
> handle the creation of the child devices more generically. To that end,
> modify the driver to create child devices for any VSEC/DVSEC features on
> supported devices (indicated by PCI ID).  Additionally, move the
> implementation from MFD to the Auxiliary bus.  VSEC/DVSEC features are
> really multifunctional PCI devices, not platform devices as MFD was
> designed for. Auxiliary bus gives more flexibility by allowing the
> definition of custom structures that can be shared between associated
> auxiliary devices and the parent device. Also, rename the driver from
> intel_pmt to intel_vsec to better reflect the purpose.
> 
> This series also removes the current runtime pm support which was not
> complete to begin with. None of the current devices require runtime pm.
> However the support will be replaced when a device is added that requires
> it.

...

> +static bool intel_vsec_walk_dvsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long quirks)
> +{
> +	bool have_devices = false;
> +	int pos = 0;
> +
> +	do {
> +		struct intel_vsec_header header;
> +		u32 table, hdr;
> +		u16 vid;
> +		int ret;
> +
> +		pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DVSEC);
> +		if (!pos)
> +			break;
> +
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1, &hdr);
> +		vid = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_VID(hdr);
> +		if (vid != PCI_VENDOR_ID_INTEL)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		/* Support only revision 1 */
> +		header.rev = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_REV(hdr);
> +		if (header.rev != 1) {
> +			dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Unsupported DVSEC revision %d\n", header.rev);
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		header.length = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER1_LEN(hdr);
> +
> +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_ENTRIES, &header.num_entries);
> +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_SIZE, &header.entry_size);
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE, &table);
> +
> +		header.tbir = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_BAR(table);
> +		header.offset = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_OFFSET(table);
> +
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_DVSEC_HEADER2, &hdr);
> +		header.id = PCI_DVSEC_HEADER2_ID(hdr);
> +
> +		ret = intel_vsec_add_dev(pdev, &header, quirks);
> +		if (ret)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		have_devices = true;
> +	} while (true);
> +
> +	return have_devices;
> +}
> +
> +static bool intel_vsec_walk_vsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long quirks)
> +{
> +	bool have_devices = false;
> +	int pos = 0;
> +
> +	do {
> +		struct intel_vsec_header header;
> +		u32 table, hdr;
> +		int ret;
> +
> +		pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_VNDR);
> +		if (!pos)
> +			break;
> +
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + PCI_VNDR_HEADER, &hdr);
> +
> +		/* Support only revision 1 */
> +		header.rev = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_REV(hdr);
> +		if (header.rev != 1) {
> +			dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Unsupported VSEC revision %d\n", header.rev);
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +
> +		header.id = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_ID(hdr);
> +		header.length = PCI_VNDR_HEADER_LEN(hdr);
> +
> +		/* entry, size, and table offset are the same as DVSEC */
> +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_ENTRIES, &header.num_entries);
> +		pci_read_config_byte(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_SIZE, &header.entry_size);
> +		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, pos + INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE, &table);
> +
> +		header.tbir = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_BAR(table);
> +		header.offset = INTEL_DVSEC_TABLE_OFFSET(table);
> +
> +		ret = intel_vsec_add_dev(pdev, &header, quirks);
> +		if (ret)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		have_devices = true;
> +	} while (true);
> +
> +	return have_devices;
> +}


I'm wondering if it makes sense to refactor each of the above to something like

int intel_vsec_extract_vsec(...)
{
	...
}

static bool intel_vsec_walk_dvsec(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned long quirks)
{
	bool have_devices = false;
	int pos;

	while ((pos = pci_find_next_ext_capability(pdev, pos, PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_DVSEC))) {
		if (intel_vsec_extract_vsec())
			continue;

		have_devices = true;
	}

	return have_devices;
}

Either way, it may be worth to convert infinite loops to ones with the clear
exit condition.

...

> +	/*
> +	 * Driver cleanup handled by intel_vsec_remove_aux() which is added
> +	 * to the pci device as a devm action

PCI

Grammatical period at the end.

> +	 */

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko



  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-13 18:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-13 17:59 [PATCH V3 0/6] Auxiliary bus driver support for Intel PCIe VSEC/DVSEC David E. Box
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 1/6] PCI: Add #defines for accessing PCIe DVSEC fields David E. Box
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 2/6] driver core: auxiliary bus: Add driver data helpers David E. Box
2021-12-13 18:04   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-12-13 18:19     ` David E. Box
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 3/6] platform/x86/intel: Move intel_pmt from MFD to Auxiliary Bus David E. Box
2021-12-13 18:27   ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2021-12-13 21:18     ` David E. Box
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 4/6] platform/x86: Add Intel Software Defined Silicon driver David E. Box
2021-12-15  6:39   ` kernel test robot
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 5/6] tools arch x86: Add Intel SDSi provisioning tool David E. Box
2021-12-13 17:59 ` [PATCH V3 6/6] selftests: sdsi: test sysfs setup David E. Box

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YbeQpyIijHbPHktN@smile.fi.intel.com \
    --to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=david.e.box@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markgross@kernel.org \
    --cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox