On Sat, 30 Sep 2023, Shyam Sundar S K wrote: > PMF driver based on the output actions from the TA can request to update > the system states like entering s0i3, lock screen etc. by generating > an uevent. Based on the udev rules set in the userspace the event id > matching the uevent shall get updated accordingly using the systemctl. > > Sample udev rules under Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst. > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309260515.5XbR6N0g-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ Please don't put lkp tags for patches that are still under development (even if the email you get misleadingly instructs you to). Only use them when you fix code that's already in tree based on LKP's report. > Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst | 1 + > Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst | 25 ++++++++++++++++ > drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h | 9 ++++++ > drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 4 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > index 43ea35613dfc..fb40a1f6f79e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst > @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ configure specific aspects of kernel behavior to your liking. > parport > perf-security > pm/index > + pmf > pnp > rapidio > ras > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..90072add511e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pmf.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +Set udev rules for PMF Smart PC Builder > +--------------------------------------- > + > +AMD PMF(Platform Management Framework) Smart PC Solution builder has to set the system states > +like S0i3, Screen lock, hibernate etc, based on the output actions provided by the PMF > +TA (Trusted Application). > + > +In order for this to work the PMF driver generates a uevent for userspace to react to. Below are > +sample udev rules that can facilitate this experience when a machine has PMF Smart PC solution builder > +enabled. > + > +Please add the following line(s) to > +``/etc/udev/rules.d/99-local.rules``:: > + > + DRIVERS=="amd-pmf", ACTION=="change", ENV{EVENT_ID}=="1", RUN+="/usr/bin/systemctl suspend" > + DRIVERS=="amd-pmf", ACTION=="change", ENV{EVENT_ID}=="2", RUN+="/usr/bin/systemctl hibernate" > + DRIVERS=="amd-pmf", ACTION=="change", ENV{EVENT_ID}=="3", RUN+="/bin/loginctl lock-sessions" > + > +EVENT_ID values: > +1= Put the system to S0i3/S2Idle > +2= Put the system to hibernate > +3= Lock the screen > + > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > index d5e410c41e81..34778192432e 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/pmf.h > @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@ > #define PMF_POLICY_STT_MIN 6 > #define PMF_POLICY_STT_SKINTEMP_APU 7 > #define PMF_POLICY_STT_SKINTEMP_HS2 8 > +#define PMF_POLICY_SYSTEM_STATE 9 > #define PMF_POLICY_P3T 38 > > /* TA macros */ > @@ -439,6 +440,13 @@ struct apmf_dyn_slider_output { > } __packed; > > /* Smart PC - TA internals */ > +enum system_state { > + SYSTEM_STATE__S0i3 = 1, > + SYSTEM_STATE__S4, > + SYSTEM_STATE__SCREEN_LOCK, > + SYSTEM_STATE__MAX > +}; > + > enum ta_slider { > TA_BEST_BATTERY, /* Best Battery */ > TA_BETTER_BATTERY, /* Better Battery */ > @@ -470,6 +478,7 @@ enum ta_pmf_error_type { > }; > > struct pmf_action_table { > + enum system_state system_state; > unsigned long spl; /* in mW */ > unsigned long sppt; /* in mW */ > unsigned long sppt_apuonly; /* in mW */ > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > index 315e3d2eacdf..961011530c1b 100644 > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd/pmf/tee-if.c > @@ -24,6 +24,20 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(pb_actions_ms, "Policy binary actions sampling frequency (defau > static const uuid_t amd_pmf_ta_uuid = UUID_INIT(0x6fd93b77, 0x3fb8, 0x524d, > 0xb1, 0x2d, 0xc5, 0x29, 0xb1, 0x3d, 0x85, 0x43); > > +static const char *amd_pmf_uevent_as_str(unsigned int state) > +{ > + switch (state) { > + case SYSTEM_STATE__S0i3: > + return "S0i3"; > + case SYSTEM_STATE__S4: > + return "S4"; > + case SYSTEM_STATE__SCREEN_LOCK: > + return "SCREEN_LOCK"; > + default: > + return "Unknown Smart PC event"; > + } > +} > + > static void amd_pmf_prepare_args(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, int cmd, > struct tee_ioctl_invoke_arg *arg, > struct tee_param *param) > @@ -42,9 +56,23 @@ static void amd_pmf_prepare_args(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, int cmd, > param[0].u.memref.shm_offs = 0; > } > > +static int amd_pmf_update_uevents(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, u16 event) > +{ > + char *envp[2] = {}; > + > + envp[0] = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "EVENT_ID=%d", event); > + if (!envp[0]) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + kobject_uevent_env(&dev->dev->kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE, envp); > + > + kfree(envp[0]); > + return 0; > +} > + > static void amd_pmf_apply_policies(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, struct ta_pmf_enact_result *out) > { > - unsigned long val; > + unsigned long val, event = 0; > int idx; > > for (idx = 0; idx < out->actions_count; idx++) { > @@ -113,6 +141,17 @@ static void amd_pmf_apply_policies(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, struct ta_pmf_enact_ > dev->prev_data->p3t_limit = val; > } > break; > + > + case PMF_POLICY_SYSTEM_STATE: > + event = val + 1; > + if (dev->prev_data->system_state != event) { > + amd_pmf_update_uevents(dev, event); > + dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update SYSTEM_STATE : %s\n", > + amd_pmf_uevent_as_str(event)); > + /* reset the previous recorded state to zero */ > + dev->prev_data->system_state = 0; No, a comment won't help you here. As is, system_state is constant 0 so it's entirely unnecessary to keep that value at all. In fact, the comment is wrong because there never was "previously recorder state" in ->system_state to begin with since it's either initialized to zero on alloc or reset to zero by this line. So what are you trying to achieve here with this ->system_state variable? -- i.
