Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] nvmem: add support for cell lookups

Bartosz Golaszewski
2018-08-28T14:41:04Z

2018-08-28 15:45 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>:
>
>
> On 28/08/18 12:56, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> 2018-08-28 12:15 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla
>> <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/08/18 14:37, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't notice it before but there's a global list of nvmem cells
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bit of history here.
>>>
>>> The global list of nvmem_cell is to assist non device tree based cell
>>> lookups. These cell entries come as part of the non-dt providers
>>> nvmem_config.
>>>
>>> All the device tree based cell lookup happen dynamically on
>>> request/demand,
>>> and all the cell definition comes from DT.
>>>
>>
>> Makes perfect sense.
>>
>>> As of today NVMEM supports both DT and non DT usecase, this is much
>>> simpler.
>>>
>>> Non dt cases have various consumer usecases.
>>>
>>> 1> Consumer is aware of provider name and cell details.
>>> This is probably simple usecase where it can just use device
>>> based
>>> apis.
>>>
>>> 2> Consumer is not aware of provider name, its just aware of cell name.
>>> This is the case where global list of cells are used.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to support an additional use case here: the provider is
>> generic and is not aware of its cells at all. Since the only way of
>> defining nvmem cells is through DT or nvmem_config, we lack a way to
>> allow machine code to define cells without the provider code being
>> aware.
>
>
> machine driver should be able to do
> nvmem_device_get()
> nvmem_add_cells()
>

Indeed, I missed the fact that you can retrieve the nvmem device by
name. Except that we cannot know that the nvmem provider has been
registered yet when calling nvmem_device_get(). This could potentially
be solved by my other patch that adds notifiers to nvmem, but it would
require much more boilerplate code in every board file. I think that
removing nvmem_cell_info from nvmem_config and having external cell
definitions would be cleaner.

> currently this adds to the global cell list which is exactly like doing it
> via nvmem_config.
>>
>>
>>>> with each cell referencing its owner nvmem device. I'm wondering if
>>>> this isn't some kind of inversion of ownership. Shouldn't each nvmem
>>>> device have a separate list of nvmem cells owned by it? What happens
>>>
>>>
>>> This is mainly done for use case where consumer does not have idea of
>>> provider name or any details.
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't need to know the provider details, but in most subsystems
>> the core code associates such resources by dev_id and optional con_id
>> as Boris already said.
>>
>
> If dev_id here is referring to provider dev_id, then we already do that
> using nvmem device apis, except in global cell list which makes dev_id
> optional.
>
>
>>> First thing non dt user should do is use "NVMEM device based consumer
>>> APIs"
>>>
>>> ex: First get handle to nvmem device using its nvmem provider name by
>>> calling nvmem_device_get(); and use nvmem_device_cell_read/write() apis.
>>>
>>> Also am not 100% sure how would maintaining cells list per nvmem provider
>>> would help for the intended purpose of global list?
>>>
>>
>> It would fix the use case where the consumer wants to use
>> nvmem_cell_get(dev, name) and two nvmem providers would have a cell
>> with the same name.
>
>
> There is no code to enforce duplicate checks, so this would just decrease
> the chances rather than fixing the problem totally.
> I guess this is same problem
>
> Finding cell by name without dev_id would still be an issue, am not too
> concerned about this ATM.
>
> However, the idea of having cells per provider does sound good to me.
> We should also maintain list of providers in core as a lookup in cases where
> dev_id is null.
>
> I did hack up a patch, incase you might want to try:
> I did only compile test.
> ---------------------------------->cut<-------------------------------
> Author: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
> Date: Tue Aug 28 13:46:21 2018 +0100
>
> nvmem: core: maintain per provider cell list
>
> Having a global cell list could be a issue in cases where the cell-id is
> same across multiple providers. Making the cell list specific to provider
> could avoid such issue by adding additional checks while addding cells.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> index aa1657831b70..29da603f2fa4 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ struct nvmem_device {
> struct device *base_dev;
> nvmem_reg_read_t reg_read;
> nvmem_reg_write_t reg_write;
> + struct list_head node;
> + struct list_head cells;
> void *priv;
> };
>
> @@ -57,9 +59,7 @@ struct nvmem_cell {
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(nvmem_mutex);
> static DEFINE_IDA(nvmem_ida);
> -
> -static LIST_HEAD(nvmem_cells);
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(nvmem_cells_mutex);
> +static LIST_HEAD(nvmem_devices);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> static struct lock_class_key eeprom_lock_key;
> @@ -284,26 +284,28 @@ static struct nvmem_device *of_nvmem_find(struct
> device_node *nvmem_np)
>
> static struct nvmem_cell *nvmem_find_cell(const char *cell_id)
> {
> - struct nvmem_cell *p;
> + struct nvmem_device *d;
>
> - mutex_lock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> -
> - list_for_each_entry(p, &nvmem_cells, node)
> - if (!strcmp(p->name, cell_id)) {
> - mutex_unlock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> - return p;
> - }
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(d, &nvmem_devices, node) {
> + struct nvmem_cell *p;
> + list_for_each_entry(p, &d->cells, node)
> + if (!strcmp(p->name, cell_id)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + return p;
> + }
> + }
>
> - mutex_unlock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
>
> return NULL;
> }
>
> static void nvmem_cell_drop(struct nvmem_cell *cell)
> {
> - mutex_lock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> list_del(&cell->node);
> - mutex_unlock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> kfree(cell);
> }
>
> @@ -312,18 +314,18 @@ static void nvmem_device_remove_all_cells(const struct
> nvmem_device *nvmem)
> struct nvmem_cell *cell;
> struct list_head *p, *n;
>
> - list_for_each_safe(p, n, &nvmem_cells) {
> + list_for_each_safe(p, n, &nvmem->cells) {
> cell = list_entry(p, struct nvmem_cell, node);
> if (cell->nvmem == nvmem)
> nvmem_cell_drop(cell);
> }
> }
>
> -static void nvmem_cell_add(struct nvmem_cell *cell)
> +static void nvmem_cell_add(struct nvmem_device *nvmem, struct nvmem_cell
> *cell)
> {
> - mutex_lock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> - list_add_tail(&cell->node, &nvmem_cells);
> - mutex_unlock(&nvmem_cells_mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + list_add_tail(&cell->node, &nvmem->cells);
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> }
>
> static int nvmem_cell_info_to_nvmem_cell(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> @@ -385,7 +387,7 @@ int nvmem_add_cells(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
> goto err;
> }
>
> - nvmem_cell_add(cells[i]);
> + nvmem_cell_add(nvmem, cells[i]);
> }
>
> /* remove tmp array */
> @@ -519,6 +521,10 @@ struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct
> nvmem_config *config)
> if (config->cells)
> nvmem_add_cells(nvmem, config->cells, config->ncells);
>
> + mutex_lock(&nvmem_mutex);
> + list_add_tail(&nvmem->node, &nvmem_devices);
> + mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> +
> return nvmem;
>
> err_device_del:
> @@ -544,6 +550,8 @@ int nvmem_unregister(struct nvmem_device *nvmem)
> mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
> return -EBUSY;
> }
> +
> + list_del(&nvmem->node);
> mutex_unlock(&nvmem_mutex);
>
> if (nvmem->flags & FLAG_COMPAT)
> @@ -899,7 +907,7 @@ struct nvmem_cell *of_nvmem_cell_get(struct device_node
> *np,
> goto err_sanity;
> }
>
> - nvmem_cell_add(cell);
> + nvmem_cell_add(nvmem, cell);
>
> return cell;
>
> ---------------------------------->cut<-------------------------------
>
>>
>> Next we could add a way to associate dev_ids with nvmem cells.
>>
>>>> if we have two nvmem providers with the same names for cells? I'm
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it would return the first instance.. which is a known issue.
>>> Am not really sure this is a big problem as of today! but am open for any
>>> better suggestions!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I would like to rework nvmem a bit. I don't see any non-DT users
>> defining nvmem-cells using nvmem_config. I think that what we need is
>> a way of specifying cell config outside of nvmem providers in some
>> kind of structures. These tables would reference the provider by name
>> and define the cells. Then we would have an additional lookup
>> structure which would associate the consumer (by dev_id and con_id,
>> where dev_id could optionally be NULL and where we would fall back to
>> using con_id only) and the nvmem provider + cell together. Similarly
>> to how GPIO consumers are associated with the gpiochip and hwnum. How
>> does it sound?
>
> Yes, sounds good.
>
> Correct me if am wrong!
> You should be able to add the new cells using struct nvmem_cell_info and add
> them to particular provider using nvmem_add_cells().
>
> Sounds like thats exactly what nvmem_add_lookup_table() would look like.
>
> We should add new nvmem_device_cell_get(nvmem, conn_id) which would return
> nvmem cell which is specific to the provider. This cell can be used by the
> machine driver to read/write.

Except that we could do it lazily - when the nvmem provider actually
gets registered instead of doing it right away and risking that the
device isn't even there yet.

>
>>>>
>>>> BTW: of_nvmem_cell_get() seems to always allocate an nvmem_cell
>>>> instance even if the cell for this node was already added to the nvmem
>>>> device.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope you got the reason why of_nvmem_cell_get() always allocates new
>>> instance for every get!!
>>
>>
>>
>> I admit I didn't test it, but just from reading the code it seems like
>> in nvmem_cell_get() for DT-users we'll always get to
>> of_nvmem_cell_get() and in there we always end up calling line 873:
>> cell = kzalloc(sizeof(*cell), GFP_KERNEL);
>>
> That is correct, this cell is created when we do a get and release when we
> do a put().
>

Shouldn't we add the cell to the list, and check first if it's there
and only create it if not?

Bart