On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:12:57PM +0530, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 10/22/2021 5:27 AM, mark gross wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:01:06PM +0530, Sanket Goswami wrote:
> >> STB (Smart Trace Buffer), is a debug trace buffer which is used to help
> >> isolate failures by analyzing the last feature that a system was running
> >> before hitting a failure. This nonintrusive way is always running in the
> >> background and trace is stored into the SoC.
> >>
> >> This patch provides mechanism to access the STB buffer using the read
> >> and write routines.
> > I don't see the write routine exported.
>
> There is a function which does this job amd_pmc_write_stb()
>
> OR
>
> You mean to say EXPORT_SYMBOL() ?
Yup. this looks like fancy memory to logging debug traces that will survive a
warmboot. So why is the scope of writing such traces limited to just this
file? Kindof looks like a useful debug hack done to solving a suspend/resume
crash. Yet, you are tring to upstream it. Shouldn't this be more generalized
if its going to be upstreamed?
--mark
>
> >
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sanket Goswami <Sanket.Goswami@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> Changes in v2:
> >> - Create amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_fops structure to get STB data.
> >> - Address review comments from Hans.
> >>
> >> drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
> >> index 502f37eaba1f..df53c5996e2c 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/amd-pmc.c
> >> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@
> >> #define AMD_PMC_SCRATCH_REG_CZN 0x94
> >> #define AMD_PMC_SCRATCH_REG_YC 0xD14
> >>
> >> +/* STB Registers */
> >> +#define AMD_PMC_STB_INDEX_ADDRESS 0xF8
> >> +#define AMD_PMC_STB_INDEX_DATA 0xFC
> >> +#define AMD_PMC_STB_PMI_0 0x03E30600
> >> +#define AMD_PMC_STB_PREDEF 0xC6000001
> >> +
> >> /* Base address of SMU for mapping physical address to virtual address */
> >> #define AMD_PMC_SMU_INDEX_ADDRESS 0xB8
> >> #define AMD_PMC_SMU_INDEX_DATA 0xBC
> >> @@ -80,6 +86,7 @@
> >> #define SOC_SUBSYSTEM_IP_MAX 12
> >> #define DELAY_MIN_US 2000
> >> #define DELAY_MAX_US 3000
> >> +#define FIFO_SIZE 4096
> >> enum amd_pmc_def {
> >> MSG_TEST = 0x01,
> >> MSG_OS_HINT_PCO,
> >> @@ -126,8 +133,14 @@ struct amd_pmc_dev {
> >> #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_FS */
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static bool enable_stb;
> >> +module_param(enable_stb, bool, 0644);
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_stb, "Enable the STB debug mechanism");
> >> +
> >> static struct amd_pmc_dev pmc;
> >> static int amd_pmc_send_cmd(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, bool set, u32 *data, u8 msg, bool ret);
> >> +static int amd_pmc_write_stb(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, u32 data);
> > shouldn't this be exported as a kernel API to log stuff? seems like a waist to
> > only log the pmc suspend resume status.
>
> Agree. But currently there are no drivers *yet* who are consumers of STB
> in the context of APU. PMC is the only driver which is currently taking
> advantage of the STB mechanism which is quite useful in debugging the
> s2idle failures.
>
> As per STB Spec, not all drivers are allowed to write to the STB buffer.
>
> >
> >> +static int amd_pmc_read_stb(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, u32 *buf);
> >>
> >> static inline u32 amd_pmc_reg_read(struct amd_pmc_dev *dev, int reg_offset)
> >> {
> >> @@ -156,6 +169,51 @@ struct smu_metrics {
> >> u64 timecondition_notmet_totaltime[SOC_SUBSYSTEM_IP_MAX];
> >> } __packed;
> >>
> >> +static int amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >> +{
> >> + struct amd_pmc_dev *dev = filp->f_inode->i_private;
> >> + u32 *buf;
> >> + int rc;
> >> +
> >> + buf = devm_kmalloc(dev->dev, FIFO_SIZE * 4, GFP_KERNEL);
> > would it be more readable to use sizeof(u32)?
> >
> >> + if (!buf)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + rc = amd_pmc_read_stb(dev, buf);
> >> + if (rc)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + filp->private_data = buf;
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> + return rc;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_read(struct file *filp, char __user *buf, size_t size,
> >> + loff_t *pos)
> >> +{
> >> + if (!filp->private_data)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, size, pos, filp->private_data,
> >> + FIFO_SIZE * 4);
> > would it be more readable to use sizeof(u32)?
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> >> +{
> >> + kfree(filp->private_data);
> >> + filp->private_data = NULL;
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +const struct file_operations amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_fops = {
> >> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> >> + .open = amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_open,
> >> + .read = amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_read,
> >> + .release = amd_pmc_stb_debugfs_release,
> > are you missing a write fop? you commit comment talked about a write routine.
>
> As per the STB spec no userspace should write to STB buffer. Hence we
> took a call not to include ".write" fop. But yes, userland can read the
> buffer any given time.
>
> Rest of the comments will be addressed in the next revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Shyam
