On 18/01/2023 17:26, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/01/2023 16:59, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:37:29PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/2023 16:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>>>>> The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers in the
>>>>> bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash. Hence,
>>>>> disable the creation of EDAC platform device on all SDM845 devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue has been observed on Lenovo Yoga C630 and DB845c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.10
>>>>> Reported-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>>>>> index 7b7c5a38bac6..8d840702df50 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>>>>> @@ -1012,11 +1012,18 @@ static int qcom_llcc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>
>>>>> drv_data->ecc_irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
>>>>>
>>>>> - llcc_edac = platform_device_register_data(&pdev->dev,
>>>>> - "qcom_llcc_edac", -1, drv_data,
>>>>> - sizeof(*drv_data));
>>>>> - if (IS_ERR(llcc_edac))
>>>>> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to register llcc edac driver\n");
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers
>>>>> + * in bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash.
>>>>> + * Hence, disable the creation of EDAC platform device on SDM845.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (!of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "qcom,sdm845-llcc")) {
>>>>
>>>> Don't spread of_device_is_compatible() in driver code. You have driver
>>>> data for this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, but there is no ID to in the driver data to identify an SoC.
>>
>> What do you mean there is no? You use exactly the same compatible as the
>> one in driver data.
>>
>
> Right, but I was saying that there is no unique field to identify an SoC.
>
>>
>>> I could add
>>> one but is that really worth doing so? Is using of_device_is_compatible() in
>>> drivers discouraged nowadays?
>>
>> Because it spreads variant matching all over. It does not scale. drv
>> data fields are the way or better quirks/flags.
>>
>
> The driver quirk/flags are usually beneficial if it applies to multiple
> platforms, otherwise they are a bit overkill IMO just like in this case.
>
> One can argue that this matching could spread to other SoCs in the future, but
> I don't think that could happen for this case.
That's the argument for every flag/quirk/field. Driver already uses it -
see need_llcc_cfg being set for only one (!!!) variant. Now you add
orthogonal field just as of_device_is_compatible(). No, that's why we
have driver data and as I said - it is already used.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
