Hi Eric, On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:52 AM Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/13/18 2:15 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Vfio-platform requires dedicated reset support, provided either by ACPI, > > or, on DT platforms, by a device-specific reset driver matching against > > the device's compatible value. > > > > On many SoCs, devices are connected to an SoC-internal reset controller. > > If the reset hierarchy is described in DT using "resets" properties, or > > in lookup tables in platform code, and devices have exactly one > > dedicated reset each, such devices can be reset in a generic way through > > the reset controller subsystem. Hence add support for this, avoiding > > the need to write device-specific reset drivers for each single device > > on affected SoCs. > > > > Devices that do require a more complex reset procedure can still provide > > a device-specific reset driver, as that takes precedence. > > > > Note that this functionality depends on CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER=y, and > > becomes a no-op (as in: "No reset function found for device") if reset > > controller support is disabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This depends on "[PATCH] reset: Add reset_control_get_count()" > > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181113124744.7769-1-geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/). > > > > v5: > > - Use reset_control_get_exclusive() instead of rejected > > reset_control_get_dedicated(), as exclusive already implies a > > dedicated reset line, > > - Ensure the device has exactly one reset, > > > > v4: > > - Add Reviewed-by, > > - Use new RFC reset_control_get_dedicated() instead of > > of_reset_control_get_exclusive(), to (a) make it more generic, and > > (b) make sure the reset returned is really a dedicated reset, and > > does not affect other devices, > > > > v3: > > - Add Reviewed-by, > > - Merge similar checks in vfio_platform_has_reset(), > > > > v2: > > - Don't store error values in vdev->reset_control, > > - Use of_reset_control_get_exclusive() instead of > > __of_reset_control_get(), > > - Improve description. > > --- > > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++-- > > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_private.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c > > index c0cd824be2b767be..ce2aad8e0a8159f9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_common.c > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/mutex.h> > > #include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > +#include <linux/reset.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/types.h> > > #include <linux/uaccess.h> > > @@ -113,11 +114,14 @@ static bool vfio_platform_has_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > > if (VFIO_PLATFORM_IS_ACPI(vdev)) > > return vfio_platform_acpi_has_reset(vdev); > > > > - return vdev->of_reset ? true : false; > > + return vdev->of_reset || vdev->reset_control; > > } > > > > static int vfio_platform_get_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > > { > > + struct reset_control *rstc; > > + int count; > > + > > if (VFIO_PLATFORM_IS_ACPI(vdev)) > > return vfio_platform_acpi_has_reset(vdev) ? 0 : -ENOENT; > > > > @@ -128,8 +132,24 @@ static int vfio_platform_get_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > > vdev->of_reset = vfio_platform_lookup_reset(vdev->compat, > > &vdev->reset_module); > > } > > + if (vdev->of_reset) > > + return 0; > > + > > + /* Generic reset handling needs a single, dedicated reset line */ > > + count = reset_control_get_count(vdev->device); > > + if (count < 0) > > + return count; > > + > > + if (count != 1) > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > - return vdev->of_reset ? 0 : -ENOENT; > > + rstc = reset_control_get_exclusive(vdev->device, NULL); > > So I understand the semantics of reset_control_get_exclusive() is now > agreed and this means the reset line is not shared with other devices, > correct? Yes, it has been clarified that the intended semantics of an exclusive reset are that the reset line is not shared with other devices. However, currently the reset controller subsystem does not enforce this. Given the clarification, this is something to fix in the reset controller subsystem, and thus orthogonal to this vfio patch. My patch "[PATCH v3] reset: Exclusive resets must be dedicated to a single hardware block" (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181113133520.20889-1-geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/) is meant to fix this. > A question about the usage of reset_control_get_count(). Why is it an > issue if the count is > 1? Does it check there are several reset lines, > each of then being used for resetting something different or does it > check there are several reset controllers are able to do the reset job? > My point behind is what's the issue as long as one non shared line can > be grabbed with reset_control_get_exclusive(). A device may have multiple resets[*]. If this is the case, a specific procedure (e.g. reset order) may be needed to reset the device fully. Assuming that just asserting the first reset will do the job may lead to failure. Hence the generic method, which is the target of my patch, should only be applied for devices with a single reset. Devices that do require a more complex reset procedure can still provide a device-specific reset driver, as that takes precedence. [*] git grep "\<resets\>.*=.*," -- "*dts*" gives +200 hits. > > + if (!IS_ERR(rstc)) { > > + vdev->reset_control = rstc; > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + return PTR_ERR(rstc); > > } > > > > static void vfio_platform_put_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > > @@ -139,6 +159,8 @@ static void vfio_platform_put_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > > > > if (vdev->of_reset) > > module_put(vdev->reset_module); > > + > > + reset_control_put(vdev->reset_control); > > Most of the drivers use devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(), can't we use > that instead and benefit from the fact the reset_control_put() is called > automatically on driver detach? Yes, we could use devm_reset_control_get_exclusive() instead. Given we still need manual release of a device-specific reset_module, and a manual call to vfio_iommu_group_put(), it wouldn't simplify the error and removal path much, though, and even lead to confusion. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
