Re: [PATCH] platform:x86 decouple telemetry driver from the optional IPC resources

[Li, Aubrey]

On 2016/4/15 8:32, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 09:46:48PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2016/4/10 21:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Currently the optional IPC resources prevent telemetry driver from
>>>> probing if these resources are not in ACPI table. This patch decouples
>>>> telemetry driver from these optional resources, so that telemetry driver
>>>> has dependency only on the necessary ACPI resources.
>>>
>>> Darren, I have comments as well.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c   |   48 +++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>  drivers/platform/x86/intel_punit_ipc.c |   48 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>>>> index 092519e..29d9c02 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_pmc_ipc.c
>>>> @@ -686,8 +686,8 @@ static int ipc_plat_get_res(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>         ipcdev.acpi_io_size = size;
>>>>         dev_info(&pdev->dev, "io res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> -       /* This is index 0 to cover BIOS data register */
>>>>         punit_res = punit_res_array;
>>>> +       /* This is index 0 to cover BIOS data register */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_BIOS_DATA_INDEX);
>>>>         if (!res) {
>>>> @@ -697,55 +697,51 @@ static int ipc_plat_get_res(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>         *punit_res = *res;
>>>>         dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit BIOS data res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> +       /* This is index 1 to cover BIOS interface register */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_BIOS_IFACE_INDEX);
>>>>         if (!res) {
>>>>                 dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get res of punit BIOS iface\n");
>>>>                 return -ENXIO;
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* This is index 1 to cover BIOS interface register */
>>>>         *++punit_res = *res;
>>>>         dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit BIOS interface res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> +       /* This is index 2 to cover ISP data register, optional */
>>>
>>> All above looks like a commentary fixes (except an additional
>>> 'optional' word in one case). Can you do this separately?
>>
>> I don't think it's necessary.
>>
> 
> This is typically necessary as you would not want the comment fixes above to be
> backed out if the functional changes below were found to be buggy and reverted.
> This is why we encourage small functional changes. It protects against
> inadvertent reverts and facilitates review.
> 
> That said, these comment changes continue below in a way that makes it a bit
> difficult to isolate them out, so I do not particularly object.

Yes, these comment changes are supposed to be together with the
functional changes, without functional changes, I won't touch these
comments.

> 
> That said, everyone should understand that Andy is part of the
> platform-driver-x86 maintainer team so please respect his comments as such.

I know Andy very well, we co-worked with PMC driver before, it was a
nice process.

> 
>>>
>>>
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_ISP_DATA_INDEX);
>>>> -       if (!res) {
>>>> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get res of punit ISP data\n");
>>>> -               return -ENXIO;
>>>> +       ++punit_res;
>>>> +       if (res) {
>>>> +               *punit_res = *res;
>>>> +               dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit ISP data res: %pR\n", res);
>>>
>>> Okay, what if you re-arrange this to some helper first
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the idea, but I don't like a helper here, did you see
>> anything harmful of the current implementation?
> 
> In both arguments, we need to identify the WHY.
> 
> I imagine Andy is trying to reduce the copy and paste potential for error as
> well as error introduction in future patches. There are... 7 or so cases with
> near identical usage, that's a compelling argument for a refactor such as the
> helper Andy suggests.
> 
> Aubrey, you said you don't like it. Why is that? Will it not save enough lines
> of code to be worth it? Are you concerned about revalidating the change?

dev_info with different strings makes the helper useless, or more
complex than desired if we have to write a helper here.

Also, we have necessary resource above, which returns directly if there
is a error. For the coding style consistency in a routine, I really
don't like we call platform_get_resource() directly at first and then
put it into a helper later. The current implementation is
straightforward and clean.

> 
> In my opinion, a refactor is a good suggestion, but I would be OK with this
> patch as it is and a refactor to follow. I hesitate to do this when the refactor
> is really critical as it may not happen, but in this case, it doesn't seem
> absolutely necessary.
> 
>>
>>> int â_assign_res(*pdev, index, *punit_res)
>>> {
>>>  struct resource res;
>>>  res = platform_get_resource(pdev, â, index);
>>>  if (!res)
>>>   return -ERRNO;
>>>  *punit_res = *res;
>>>  dev_dbg(%pR);
>>>  return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> In this patch you move to optional by
>>> dev_err -> dev_warn
>>>
>>> and use
>>>
>>> if (ret)
>>>   dev_warn( "âskip  optional resourceâ" );
>>>
>>> instead of
>>> if (ret) {
>>>  dev_err();
>>>  return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* This is index 2 to cover ISP data register */
>>>> -       *++punit_res = *res;
>>>> -       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit ISP data res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> +       /* This is index 3 to cover ISP interface register, optional */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_ISP_IFACE_INDEX);
>>>> -       if (!res) {
>>>> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get res of punit ISP iface\n");
>>>> -               return -ENXIO;
>>>> +       ++punit_res;
>>>> +       if (res) {
>>>> +               *punit_res = *res;
>>>> +               dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit ISP interface res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* This is index 3 to cover ISP interface register */
>>>> -       *++punit_res = *res;
>>>> -       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit ISP interface res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> +       /* This is index 4 to cover GTD data register, optional */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_DATA_INDEX);
>>>> -       if (!res) {
>>>> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get res of punit GTD data\n");
>>>> -               return -ENXIO;
>>>> +       ++punit_res;
>>>> +       if (res) {
>>>> +               *punit_res = *res;
>>>> +               dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit GTD data res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* This is index 4 to cover GTD data register */
>>>> -       *++punit_res = *res;
>>>> -       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit GTD data res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>> +       /* This is index 5 to cover GTD interface register, optional */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_GTD_IFACE_INDEX);
>>>> -       if (!res) {
>>>> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get res of punit GTD iface\n");
>>>> -               return -ENXIO;
>>>> +       ++punit_res;
>>>> +       if (res) {
>>>> +               *punit_res = *res;
>>>> +               dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit GTD interface res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>         }
>>>> -       /* This is index 5 to cover GTD interface register */
>>>> -       *++punit_res = *res;
>>>> -       dev_info(&pdev->dev, "punit GTD interface res: %pR\n", res);
>>>>
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>>>>                                     PLAT_RESOURCE_IPC_INDEX);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_punit_ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_punit_ipc.c
>>>> index bd87540..a47a41f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel_punit_ipc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel_punit_ipc.c
>>>> @@ -227,6 +227,11 @@ static int intel_punit_get_bars(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>         struct resource *res;
>>>>         void __iomem *addr;
>>>>
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * The following resources are required
>>>> +        * - BIOS_IPC BASE_DATA
>>>> +        * - BIOS_IPC BASE_IFACE
>>>> +        */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
>>>>         addr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>>>         if (IS_ERR(addr))
>>>> @@ -239,29 +244,40 @@ static int intel_punit_get_bars(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>                 return PTR_ERR(addr);
>>>>         punit_ipcdev->base[BIOS_IPC][BASE_IFACE] = addr;
>>>>
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * The following resources are optional
>>>> +        * - ISPDRIVER_IPC BASE_DATA
>>>> +        * - ISPDRIVER_IPC BASE_IFACE
>>>> +        * - GTDRIVER_IPC BASE_DATA
>>>> +        * - GTDRIVER_IPC BASE_IFACE
>>>> +        */
>>>>         res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 2);
>>>> -       addr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>>> -       if (IS_ERR(addr))
>>>> -               return PTR_ERR(addr);
>>>> -       punit_ipcdev->base[ISPDRIVER_IPC][BASE_DATA] = addr;
>>>> +       if (res) {
>>>> +               addr = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
>>>> +               if (!IS_ERR(addr))
>>>> +                       punit_ipcdev->base[ISPDRIVER_IPC][BASE_DATA] = addr;
>>>> +       }
>>>
>>> And here, what about just replacing return to dev_warn()?
>>
>> I don't think we need to continue the subsequent ops if an error address
>> returns.
> 
> Why is that? Will the driver fail to provide any functionality? Or could it be
> the other IFACEs could still be of some use?
> 
> This one does need a justification.
> 
We discussed this.
- For the necessary resources, if we obtain an error address, we should
return immediately.
- For the optional resources, we keep quiet if we don't get them, that
is, not throwing a warning out.

Thanks,
-Aubrey