From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C20832ED3A; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:38:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773679140; cv=none; b=uYSBJEYJf/nFP7WjGPg64bjNDRdDfgxqm4RowJ68rL7IdWb679iwAU7wGnYciAHAuVLwplvHVMRbt18bjUWOujyBl8Ts3AfObHibjBBllwote+uz5M317wugLK8OWyzlzWhMvkNOp39Jm1fTklMhcT6yTSTqBk4AZpyUcu8O7Ik= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773679140; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dwr8aXwrvNxvG7P8NuFEETWR/ngTVO8/oI+DekZIcPY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iCDzRXYJeG2mAJIEgXY9+UrGNldSxTUcMStZo+6Bt4kbWelqXMXze+bgSf0k5w/uRSHXHRiAsRcUXtTCwgsgeMd9vR0JEElljPh9K3XgQNqJhiOYL3pzYneocscTZulS+H90KRyZyN0qb//KZbB38ZbsUviE8dWfCoPhyjfLFgU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9930314BF; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 213E83F73B; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 09:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:38:53 +0000 From: Cristian Marussi To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Cristian Marussi , Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, philip.radford@arm.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, etienne.carriere@foss.st.com, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com, michal.simek@amd.com, dan.carpenter@linaro.org, geert+renesas@glider.be, kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com, marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] firmware: arm_scmi: Harden clock protocol initialization Message-ID: References: <20260310184030.3669330-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260310184030.3669330-9-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260312-classy-misty-platypus-5baea1@sudeepholla> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 05:35:26PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Cristian, > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 17:14, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 04:50:17PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 at 17:36, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 03:33:52PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 06:45:41PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 05:59:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 19:56, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > > > > Add proper error handling on failure to enumerate clocks features or > > > > > > > > rates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1143,8 +1149,12 @@ static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph) > > > > > > > > for (clkid = 0; clkid < cinfo->num_clocks; clkid++) { > > > > > > > > cinfo->clkds[clkid].id = clkid; > > > > > > > > ret = scmi_clock_attributes_get(ph, clkid, cinfo); > > > > > > > > - if (!ret) > > > > > > > > - scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(ph, clkid, cinfo); > > > > > > > > + if (ret) > > > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This change breaks R-Car X5H with SCP FW SDKv4.28.0, as some clocks > > > > > > > do not support the SCMI CLOCK_ATTRIBUTES command. > > > > > > Apparently it is not just CLOCK_ATTRIBUTES, but also > > > CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES. > > > > I was indeed suspicious that I could have opened a can of worms by > > more strictly enfrocing these... > > > > > > > > > Before, these clocks were still instantiated, but were further unusable. > > > > > > > After, the whole clock driver fails to initialize, and no SCMI clocks > > > > > > > are available at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and this is exactly what I feared while doing this sort of hardening :P > > > > > > > > > > > > So there are a few possible solutions (beside reverting this straight away) > > > > > > > > > > > > The easy fix would be instead change the above in a > > > > > > > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > > continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > ...with a bit of annoying accompanying FW_BUG logs, of course, to cause future > > > > > > FW releases to fix this :D > > > > > > > > > > > > Another option could be leave it as it is, since indeed it is the correct enforced > > > > > > behaviour, being CLOCK_ATTRIBUTES a mandatory command, BUT add on top an ad-hoc SCMI > > > > > > quirk targeting the affected FW releases... > > > > > > > > > > > > This latter option, though, while enforcing the correct behaviour AND > > > > > > fixing your R-Car issue, leaves open the door for a number of possible > > > > > > failures of other unknowingly buggy Vendors similarly deployed firmwares... > > > > > > > > > > > > ...that could be solved with more quirks of course...but...worth it ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see also what @Sudeep thinks about this... > > > > > > > > > > I prefer to fix it as a quirk to prevent similar issues on newer platforms if > > > > > the firmware baselines are derived from it. In the worst case, we can relax > > > > > the hardening until we figure out a proper quirk-based solution. > > > > > > > > Ok, I can post a V3 with a dummy quirk 'template' RFC to be filled by > > > > Geert with proper versioning....so I can check that there are no > > > > surprises round the (quirked) corner... > > > > > > Unfortunately you cannot "continue" from a quirk, without resorting > > > to a goto, so I sent a fix: "[PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Support loop > > > control in quirk code snippets"[1]. > > > > Yes ... just realized that this afternoon when trying to draft a > > quirk... (see other thread) > > > > > Then I came up with the following preliminary (have to check more > > > firmware versions) quirk (Gmail whitespace-damaged): > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > index f62f9492bd42afbc..6f2af6e9084836c6 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c > > > @@ -1230,6 +1230,18 @@ static const struct scmi_protocol_events > > > clk_protocol_events = { > > > .num_events = ARRAY_SIZE(clk_events), > > > }; > > > > > > +#define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES \ > > > + ({ \ > > > + if (ret == -EREMOTEIO || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) \ > > > + continue; \ > > > + }) > > > + > > > +#define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES > > > \ > > > + ({ \ > > > + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP) \ > > > + ret = 0; \ > > > + }) > > > + > > > static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph) > > > { > > > int clkid, ret; > > > @@ -1254,10 +1266,12 @@ static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const > > > struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph) > > > for (clkid = 0; clkid < cinfo->num_clocks; clkid++) { > > > cinfo->clkds[clkid].id = clkid; > > > ret = scmi_clock_attributes_get(ph, clkid, cinfo); > > > + SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, > > > QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES); > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(ph, clkid, cinfo); > > > + SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, > > > QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES); > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > Does that look like what you have in mind? > > > Thanks! > > > > Yes in quirk I was only addressing NOT_ATTRIBUTES and mimicing the old > > behaviour with continue, BUT if the set of clocks not supporting attributes > > and the set of clocks not suppporting rates is disjoint, I feel we need your > > double quirks :P > > I could have used > > SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES); > > after both scmi_clock_attributes_get() and > scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(), but I wanted to keep the check as > strict as possible: the former returns two error codes to ignore, > the latter only one. > > > If you are still finding out the exact FW versions that are failing maybe > > it is better if you carry on and test the quirk-framework fix above together > > with your quirks and we can make sure to pick all up together... > > It is not urgent, as R-Car X5H SCMI support is not yet upstream. Ah ok. > > > ...OR maybe better I can also drop for now my offending patch that breaks > > your FW from my V3 series and you can pick it up and post it later with > > your quirks and the Quirk framework fix you propsoed so that we are sure > > that we dont break anything while fixing all of this... > > While there is indeed a chance that this hardening regresses on > platforms that are already upstream... Yes indeed... > > > Also because we are already in V4 and I dont want to risk to post the > > breaking fix (that was at the end broke since forever) BUT not the quirks... > > s/in V4/at rc4/? yep... -rc4 I meant.. > > > Let's see what @Sudeep thinks > > OK. > Thanks, Cristian