Hi Hans,
On 22-Oct-21 14:21, Hans de Goede wrote:
> [CAUTION: External Email]
>
> Hi Sanket,
>
> On 10/22/21 08:55, Goswami, Sanket wrote:
>> Hi Hans,
>>
>> On 21-Oct-21 23:48, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> [CAUTION: External Email]
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 10/21/21 11:29, Sanket Goswami wrote:
>>>> Store the root port information in amd_pmc_probe() so that the
>>>> information can be used across multiple routines.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - Store the rdev info in amd_pmc_probe() as suggested by Hans.
>>>
>>> Thank you, but there are still some issues, see below.
>>>
>>>
>>>> drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c | 4 +++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> index 55f14bdfdbfd..502f37eaba1f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
>>>> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ struct amd_pmc_dev {
>>>> u16 minor;
>>>> u16 rev;
>>>> struct device *dev;
>>>> + struct pci_dev *rdev;
>>>> struct mutex lock; /* generic mutex lock */
>>>> #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
>>>> struct dentry *dbgfs_dir;
>>>> @@ -482,6 +483,7 @@ static int amd_pmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + dev->rdev = rdev;
>>>> dev->cpu_id = rdev->device;
>>>> err = pci_write_config_dword(rdev, AMD_PMC_SMU_INDEX_ADDRESS, AMD_PMC_BASE_ADDR_LO);
>>>> if (err) {
>>>> @@ -512,7 +514,6 @@ static int amd_pmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> base_addr_hi = val & AMD_PMC_BASE_ADDR_LO_MASK;
>>>> - pci_dev_put(dev->rdev);
>>>
>>> The current code here actually reads:
>>>
>>> pci_dev_put(rdev);
>>>
>>> Note (rdev) not (dev->rdev). I don't know what you based this on, this is weird.
>>
>> rdev is already retrieved before doing this:
>> pci_dev_put(dev->rdev);
>>
>> i.e.
>> in amd_pmc_probe()
>>
>> rdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(0, 0, PCI_DEVFN(0, 0));
>> if (!rdev || !pci_match_id(pmc_pci_ids, rdev)) {
>> pci_dev_put(rdev);
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> after this I am storing rdev in "dev->rdev"
>> i.e.
>> dev->rdev = rdev;
>>
>> after this I am using "dev->rdev" at places where "rdev" was getting used earlier.
>> Do you see any problem?
>
> What I was trying to say is that the patch does not apply, because it is
> trying to remove the pci_put_dev() line from a block of code like this:
>
> base_addr_hi = val & AMD_PMC_BASE_ADDR_LO_MASK;
> pci_dev_put(dev->rdev);
> base_addr = ((u64)base_addr_hi << 32 | base_addr_lo);
>
> But the actual code in platform-drivers-x86/review-hans (and for-next too) has:
>
> base_addr_hi = val & AMD_PMC_BASE_ADDR_LO_MASK;
> pci_dev_put(rdev);
> base_addr = ((u64)base_addr_hi << 32 | base_addr_lo);
>
>
>
> After your patch using dev->rdev instead of just rdev is fine
> (but please be consistent, which would mean use just rdev everywhere).
>
> But your patch is removing a line which does not exist in that form,
> IOW it is based on some intermediate version of amd-pmc.c and not
> on the HEAD of platform-drivers-x86/review-hans.
I will rebase it to review-hans branch and will respin a new version.
Thanks,
Sanket
