Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm/arm64: smccc: Add ARCH_SOC_ID support

[Sudeep Holla]

On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:25:27PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/04/2020 12:48, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > +static int __init smccc_soc_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct device *dev;
> > +	int ret, soc_id_rev;
> > +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > +	static char soc_id_str[8], soc_id_rev_str[12];
> > +
> > +	if (arm_smccc_get_version() < ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_2)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	ret = smccc_soc_id_support_check();
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_SOC_ID, 0, &res);
> > +
> > +	ret = smccc_map_error_codes(res.a0);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	soc_id_version = res.a0;
> > +
> > +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_SOC_ID, 1, &res);
> > +
> > +	ret = smccc_map_error_codes(res.a0);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	soc_id_rev = res.a0;
> > +
> > +	soc_dev_attr = kzalloc(sizeof(*soc_dev_attr), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!soc_dev_attr)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	sprintf(soc_id_str, "0x%04x", IMP_DEF_SOC_ID(soc_id_version));
> > +	sprintf(soc_id_rev_str, "0x%08x", soc_id_rev);
> > +
> > +	soc_dev_attr->soc_id = soc_id_str;
> > +	soc_dev_attr->revision = soc_id_rev_str;
> > +
> > +	soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) {
> > +		ret = PTR_ERR(soc_dev);
> > +		goto free_soc;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	dev = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev);
> > +
>
> Just wondering, what about if the platform already had a SoC driver - now it
> could have another one, such that we may have multiple sysfs soc devices,
> right?
>

Yes I had a quick look at that.

1. Such platform has option not to implement this SOC_ID if it doesn't
   really require it.

2. If the firmware starts implementing it on some variants, then we can
   distinguish them with compatibles and blacklist them from the other
   SoC driver if having both is an issue

3. SoC bus layer supports adding multiple SoC ID driver and it may show
   up as /sys/devices/soc<n> which may or may not be fine. But this
   happens only if neither [1] nor [2] is done. I am happy to see if there's
   any solution for this. Any suggestions ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep