On 7/19/21 8:50 AM, Chatradhi, Naveen Krishna wrote:
[AMD Official Use Only]
Hi Guenter,
Thank you for your review, will submit revised version shortly.
Regards,
Naveenk
-----Original Message-----
From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@xxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Guenter Roeck
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 11:28 AM
To: Chatradhi, Naveen Krishna <NaveenKrishna.Chatradhi@xxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-hwmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gupta, Akshay <Akshay.Gupta@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hwmon: sbrmi: Add support for sbrmi power module
[CAUTION: External Email]
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:28:57PM +0530, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi wrote:
From: Akshay Gupta <Akshay.Gupta@xxxxxxx>
On AMD platforms the Out-of-band access is provided by Advanced
Platform Management Link (APML), APML is a SMBus v2.0 compatible
2-wire processor client interface.
APML is also referred as the sideband interface (SBI).
APML is used to communicate with the
Side-Band Remote Management Interface (SB-RMI) which provides Soft
Mailbox messages to manage power consumption and power limits of the
CPU socket.
- This module add support to read power consumption,
power limit & max power limit and write power limit.
- To instantiate this driver on a Board Management Controller (BMC)
connected to an AMD CPU with SB-RMI support, the i2c bus number
would be the bus connected from the BMC to the CPU.
Signed-off-by: Akshay Gupta <Akshay.Gupta@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <nchatrad@xxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v1:
1. remove header file and move in alphabetical order 2. make all
comments multiline 3. remove the pr_err, needed for debugging only 4.
fix #define tab issue 5. uninitailize err,
- correct spelling & remove extra ()
- remove extra i2c functionality check 6. reduce call to
data->client 7. remove usage of union
drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 10 ++
drivers/hwmon/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/hwmon/sbrmi.c | 341
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 352 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/hwmon/sbrmi.c
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig index
87624902ea80..f489972a6309 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
@@ -1551,6 +1551,16 @@ config SENSORS_SBTSI
This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will
be called sbtsi_temp.
+config SENSORS_SBRMI
+ tristate "Emulated SB-RMI sensor"
+ depends on I2C
+ help
+ If you say yes here you get support for emulated RMI
+ sensors on AMD SoCs with APML interface connected to a BMC device.
+
+ This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module will
+ be called sbrmi.
+
config SENSORS_SHT15
tristate "Sensiron humidity and temperature sensors. SHT15 and compat."
depends on GPIOLIB || COMPILE_TEST diff --git
a/drivers/hwmon/Makefile b/drivers/hwmon/Makefile index
59e78bc212cf..8031acf58936 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/Makefile
@@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_PWM_FAN) += pwm-fan.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_RASPBERRYPI_HWMON) += raspberrypi-hwmon.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_S3C) += s3c-hwmon.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_SBTSI) += sbtsi_temp.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_SBRMI) += sbrmi.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_SCH56XX_COMMON)+= sch56xx-common.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_SCH5627) += sch5627.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SENSORS_SCH5636) += sch5636.o
diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/sbrmi.c b/drivers/hwmon/sbrmi.c new file
mode 100644 index 000000000000..10622b1f23f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/sbrmi.c
@@ -0,0 +1,341 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+/*
+ * sbrmi.c - hwmon driver for a SB-RMI mailbox
+ * compliant AMD SoC device.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2020-2021 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/hwmon.h>
+#include <linux/i2c.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
+#include <linux/mutex.h>
+#include <linux/of.h>
+
+/* Do not allow setting negative power limit */
+#define SBRMI_PWR_MIN 0
+/* Mask for Status Register bit[1] */
+#define SW_ALERT_MASK 0x2
+
+/* Software Interrupt for triggering */
+#define START_CMD 0x80
+#define TRIGGER_MAILBOX 0x01
+
+/*
+ * SB-RMI supports soft mailbox service request to MP1 (power
+management
+ * firmware) through SBRMI inbound/outbound message registers.
+ * SB-RMI message IDs
+ */
+enum sbrmi_msg_id {
+ SBRMI_READ_PKG_PWR_CONSUMPTION = 0x1,
+ SBRMI_WRITE_PKG_PWR_LIMIT,
+ SBRMI_READ_PKG_PWR_LIMIT,
+ SBRMI_READ_PKG_MAX_PWR_LIMIT,
+};
+
+/* SB-RMI registers */
+enum sbrmi_reg {
+ SBRMI_CTRL = 0x01,
+ SBRMI_STATUS,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG0 = 0x30,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG1,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG2,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG3,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG4,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG5,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG6,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG7,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG0,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG1,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG2,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG3,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG4,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG5,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG6,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG7,
+ SBRMI_SW_INTERRUPT,
+};
+
+/* Each client has this additional data */ struct sbrmi_data {
+ struct i2c_client *client;
+ struct mutex lock;
+};
+
+struct sbrmi_mailbox_msg {
+ u8 cmd;
+ bool read;
+ u32 data_in;
+ u32 data_out;
+};
+
+static int sbrmi_enable_alert(struct i2c_client *client) {
+ int ctrl;
+
+ /*
+ * Enable the SB-RMI Software alert status
+ * by writing 0 to bit 4 of Control register(0x1)
+ */
+ ctrl = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(client, SBRMI_CTRL);
+ if (ctrl < 0)
+ return ctrl;
+
+ if (ctrl & 0x10) {
+ ctrl &= ~0x10;
+ return i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client,
+ SBRMI_CTRL, ctrl);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int rmi_mailbox_xfer(struct sbrmi_data *data,
+ struct sbrmi_mailbox_msg *msg) {
+ int i, ret, retry = 10;
+ int sw_status;
+ u8 byte;
+
+ mutex_lock(&data->lock);
+
+ ret = sbrmi_enable_alert(data->client);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
+
Is it really necessary to call this for every command (instead of once during probe) ?
[naveenk:] Will move it
+ /* Indicate firmware a command is to be serviced */
+ ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG7, START_CMD);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
+
+ /* Write the command to SBRMI::InBndMsg_inst0 */
+ ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG0, msg->cmd);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
+
+ /*
+ * For both read and write the initiator (BMC) writes
+ * Command Data In[31:0] to SBRMI::InBndMsg_inst[4:1]
+ * SBRMI_x3C(MSB):SBRMI_x39(LSB)
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
+ byte = (msg->data_in >> i * 8) & 0xff;
+ ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_INBNDMSG1 + i, byte);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Write 0x01 to SBRMI::SoftwareInterrupt to notify firmware to
+ * perform the requested read or write command
+ */
+ ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_SW_INTERRUPT, TRIGGER_MAILBOX);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
+
+ /*
+ * Firmware will write SBRMI::Status[SwAlertSts]=1 to generate
+ * an ALERT (if enabled) to initiator (BMC) to indicate completion
+ * of the requested command
+ */
+ do {
+ sw_status = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_STATUS);
+ if (sw_status < 0) {
+ ret = sw_status;
+ goto exit_unlock;
+ }
+ if (sw_status & SW_ALERT_MASK)
+ break;
+ usleep_range(50, 100);
I don't have the interface specification, but is ~600 uS guaranteed to be sufficient time for the firmware to respond ?
[naveenk:] The SB-RMI is explained in the APML chapter of the reference manual available https://www.amd.com/en/support/tech-docs?keyword=55898
I did not find any mention of the response time, we ran several times and never seen the loop execute twice. Do you have any recommendation here ?
Not really. The code is good enough for me if it is good enough for you,
especially if the timeout is not well defined.
+ } while (retry--);
+
+ if (retry < 0) {
+ pr_err("Firmware fail to indicate command
+ completion\n");
Please use dev_err(). Also, does this really warrant an error message ?
I am concerned that it may fill up the log if there is an issue with the client, eg if it hangs. On top of that, there is already an error message below. Please no more than one message per error.
[naveenk:] Sure will change to dev_err and remove one of the prints
+ ret = -1;
Please use standard error codes (-ETIMEDOUT ? -EIO ? -EPROTO ?).
-1 translates to -EPERM which is presumably not what you want.
[naveenk:] Will use -EIO
+ goto exit_unlock;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * For a read operation, the initiator (BMC) reads the firmware
+ * response Command Data Out[31:0] from SBRMI::OutBndMsg_inst[4:1]
+ * {SBRMI_x34(MSB):SBRMI_x31(LSB)}.
+ */
+ if (msg->read) {
+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
+ ret = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(data->client,
+ SBRMI_OUTBNDMSG1 + i);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto exit_unlock;
This is a concern in conjunction with the ignored error in sbrmi_write().
If there is an error after reading a number of bytes, the returned value will be partial/random.
[naveenk:] Will address the return value
+ msg->data_out |= (ret & 0xff) << i * 8;
The mask is unnecessary here. A byte read will never return a value > 0xff.
[naveenk:] Sure will remove
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * BMC must write 1'b1 to SBRMI::Status[SwAlertSts] to clear the
+ * ALERT to initiator
+ */
+ ret = i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(data->client, SBRMI_STATUS,
+ sw_status | SW_ALERT_MASK);
+
+exit_unlock:
+ if (ret < 0)
+ pr_err("SMBUS translation failed\n");
dev_err(). Also, please consider that this may fill the log if the client or the i2c controller/bus has a problem.
[naveenk:] Will remove this print
+
+ mutex_unlock(&data->lock);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int sbrmi_read(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
+ u32 attr, int channel, long *val) {
+ struct sbrmi_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct sbrmi_mailbox_msg msg = { 0 };
+ int ret;
+
+ if (type != hwmon_power)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ msg.read = true;
+ switch (attr) {
+ case hwmon_power_input:
+ msg.cmd = SBRMI_READ_PKG_PWR_CONSUMPTION;
+ ret = rmi_mailbox_xfer(data, &msg);
+ break;
+ case hwmon_power_cap:
+ msg.cmd = SBRMI_READ_PKG_PWR_LIMIT;
+ ret = rmi_mailbox_xfer(data, &msg);
+ break;
+ case hwmon_power_cap_max:
+ msg.cmd = SBRMI_READ_PKG_MAX_PWR_LIMIT;
+ ret = rmi_mailbox_xfer(data, &msg);
+ break;
+ default:
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ /* hwmon power attributes are in microWatt */
+ *val = (long)msg.data_out * 1000;
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int sbrmi_write(struct device *dev, enum hwmon_sensor_types type,
+ u32 attr, int channel, long val) {
+ struct sbrmi_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ struct sbrmi_mailbox_msg msg = { 0 };
+
+ if (type != hwmon_power && attr != hwmon_power_cap)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ /*
+ * hwmon power attributes are in microWatt
+ * mailbox read/write is in mWatt
+ */
+ val /= 1000;
+
+ msg.cmd = SBRMI_READ_PKG_MAX_PWR_LIMIT;
+ msg.data_in = 0;
Unnecessary (already initialized above).
+ msg.read = true;
+ rmi_mailbox_xfer(data, &msg);
Not sure if it is a good idea to ignore an error return here.
As far as I can see in rmi_mailbox_xfer(), the returned value is more or less random if there is an error.
If the maximum power limit is static, it might make sense to read it only once in the prob function and cache the limit in struct sbrmi_data instead of reading it repeatedly.
[naveenk:] The maximum limit is fixed, will cache during probe.
If the limit is not static and it is indeed necessary to re-read the limit, isn't this racy if there are multiple write requests in parallel ?
[naveenk:] the operating limit value can be set to a value below the max_limit
Yes, I understand. My concern was potential race if the first mailbox transfer
would not return a constant. This is not an issue if there is only one
mailbox transfer.
Thanks,
Guenter
