On 6/17/2021 11:01 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/17/21 6:56 PM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
>> On 6/17/2021 10:02, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 6/17/21 1:30 PM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>>>> It was lately understood that the current mechanism available in the
>>>> driver to get SMU firmware info works only on internal SMU builds and
>>>> there is a separate way to get all the SMU logging counters (addressed
>>>> in the next patch). Hence remove all the smu info shown via debugfs as it
>>>> is no more useful.
>>>>
>>>> Also, use dump registers routine only at one place i.e. after the command
>>>> submission to SMU is done.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 156ec4731cb2 ("platform/x86: amd-pmc: Add AMD platform support for S2Idle")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c | 15 +--------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> index 9c8a53120767..ce0e2ad94d09 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> @@ -52,7 +52,6 @@
>>>> #define AMD_CPU_ID_PCO AMD_CPU_ID_RV
>>>> #define AMD_CPU_ID_CZN AMD_CPU_ID_RN
>>>> -#define AMD_SMU_FW_VERSION 0x0
>>>> #define PMC_MSG_DELAY_MIN_US 100
>>>> #define RESPONSE_REGISTER_LOOP_MAX 200
>>>> @@ -88,11 +87,6 @@ static inline void amd_pmc_reg_write(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, int reg_offset, u3
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
>>>> static int smu_fw_info_show(struct seq_file *s, void *unused)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct amd_pmc_dev *dev = s->private;
>>>> - u32 value;
>>>> -
>>>> - value = ioread32(dev->smu_base + AMD_SMU_FW_VERSION);
>>>> - seq_printf(s, "SMU FW Info: %x\n", value);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(smu_fw_info);
>>>> @@ -164,6 +158,7 @@ static int amd_pmc_send_cmd(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, bool set)
>>>> dev_err(dev->dev, "SMU response timed out\n");
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>> + amd_pmc_dump_registers(dev);
>>>
>>> Is this addition instead of a removal intentional ? If this is intentional
>>> this really should be done in a separate commit, with a commit message
>>> explaining why this change is being made.
>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -176,7 +171,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused amd_pmc_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>> if (rc)
>>>> dev_err(pdev->dev, "suspend failed\n");
>>>> - amd_pmc_dump_registers(pdev);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -189,7 +183,6 @@ static int __maybe_unused amd_pmc_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> if (rc)
>>>> dev_err(pdev->dev, "resume failed\n");
>>>> - amd_pmc_dump_registers(pdev);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -256,17 +249,11 @@ static int amd_pmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> pci_dev_put(rdev);
>>>> base_addr = ((u64)base_addr_hi << 32 | base_addr_lo);
>>>> - dev->smu_base = devm_ioremap(dev->dev, base_addr, AMD_PMC_MAPPING_SIZE);
>>>> - if (!dev->smu_base)
>>>> - return -ENOMEM;
>>>> -
>>>
>>> Since you are now no longer setting this, I assume that this is also
>>> not used anywhere anymore? And thus the smu_base variable should also
>>> be removed from the "dev" struct.
>>
>> It's removed in the next patch.
>
> Ah I missed that.
>
>> I suppose when Shyam re-spins you're looking to have it removed in "this" patch instead.
>
> Yes please.
OK. Thanks! Shall re-spin a v2 once you review the series on Monday.
Thanks,
Shyam
