Re: [PATCH v6 05/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: write sleep/wake requests to TCS

[Matthias Kaehlcke]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:45:59PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27 2018 at 12:40 -0600, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:39:43AM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25 2018 at 15:41 -0600, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 04:16:30PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > > > > Sleep and wake requests are sent when the application processor
> > > > > subsystem of the SoC is entering deep sleep states like in suspend.
> > > > > These requests help lower the system power requirements when the
> > > > > resources are not in use.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sleep and wake requests are written to the TCS slots but are not
> > > > > triggered at the time of writing. The TCS are triggered by the firmware
> > > > > after the last of the CPUs has executed its WFI. Since these requests
> > > > > may come in different batches of requests, it is the job of this
> > > > > controller driver to find and arrange the requests into the available
> > > > > TCSes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h |   8 +++
> > > > >  drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c      | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 128 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> > > > > index d9a21726e568..6e19fe458c31 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-internal.h
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > +static int find_match(const struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_cmd *cmd,
> > > > > +		      int len)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	int i, j;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Check for already cached commands */
> > > > > +	for_each_set_bit(i, tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS) {
> > > > > +		for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
> > > > > +			if (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr) {
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't the condition be 'tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr'?
> > > >
> > > Here, we are trying to find the first address from the request and its
> > > position 'i' in the cmd_cache.
> > > 
> > > > Otherwise the code below the following if branch will never be
> > > > executed. Either the 'tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr' branch isn't
> > > > entered because the addresses match, or the addresses don't match
> > > > and the inner loop is aborted after the first iteration.
> > > >
> > > > > +				if (j == 0)
> > > > > +					break;
> > > > > +				WARN(tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr,
> > > > > +				     "Message does not match previous sequence.\n");
> > > We now check for the sequence using the iterator 'j' only after we have
> > > found 'i' (the beginning of our request).
> > > 
> > > I hope that helps clear the concern.
> > 
> > It doesn't, maybe I'm just confused, the driver has a certain
> > complexity and I don't claim to have a comprehensive understanding :)
> > 
> > If I understand correctly find_match() is used to find a sequence of
> > commands of length 'len' in the command cache. If that is correct I
> > would expect it to do the following:
> > 
> > 1. iterate through the commands in the command cache and find a
> > command that matches the first command in the sequence
> > 
> > 2. verify that the (len - 1) subsequent commands match those in the
> > sequence, otherwise bail out
> > 
> > If I'm not mistaken the current version of find_match() only checks
> > that the first command exists. After that it happily increases the
> > command index, but doesn't perform any checks (after finding the first
> > command 'tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr' remains false for the
> > subsequent values of j). When j reaches (len - 1) the function
> > returns the index of the first command in the cache, regardless of
> > whether the other commands match or not.
> > 
> Did you miss the check inside the WARN?
> WARN(tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr,

My point is that this code is never reached, also regardless of the
condition, the branch would always return -EINVAL.

for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
	if (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr) {
		if (j == 0)
			break;
		WARN(tcs->cmd_cache[i + j] != cmd[j].addr,
		     "Message does not match previous sequence.\n");
		return -EINVAL;
	} else if (j == len - 1) {
		return i;
	}
}

Let's single step through this, assuming the sequence of len=3 is in
the cache:

1. j=0
2. (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr): false
  => branch with WARN + EINVAL not executed (good, this is the first
    command we are looking for)
3. (j == len - 1): false

4. j=1
5. (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr): false
  => branch with WARN + EINVAL not executed
6. (j == len - 1): false

7. j=2
8. (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr): false
  => branch with WARN + EINVAL not executed
9. (j == len - 1): true
  => return i

Am I getting something wrong here?