lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Add AMD PSP I2C bus support
Hi Mario, Tom,

+Nimesh (PSP)

pt., 21 sty 2022 o 20:18 Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> napisał(a):
>
> On 1/21/22 11:38 AM, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> > [Public]
> >
> > +Thomas (ccp driver)
> > +Alex (amdgpu driver)
> >
> >>
> >> On 1/21/22 10:59, Jan Dąbroś wrote:
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Through here seems to all be generic code for accessing
> >>>> the AMD PSP. To me this seems like something which belongs
> >>>> in a separate AMD-PSP-mbox driver/lib, which can then be
> >>>> shared between other kernel drivers which may also want
> >>>> to access PSP.
> >>>
> >>> I see your point clearly and actually it is not an accident that I've
> >>> put all PSP-mailbox methods in one "block". They are logically
> >>> different than the rest of i2c-adapter specific methods.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, above PSP mailbox was created by AMD solely for the
> >>> purpose of i2c_arbitration. It has its own set of commands and
> >>> specific format of the command-response buffer. Thus it is not and it
> >>> won't be generic in the future. There are already upstreamed drivers
> >>> from AMD (under drivers/crypto/ccp/) which made use of PSP, however
> >>> their channel of communication looks completely different than the
> >>> very simple i2c_arbitration model implemented above.
> >>>
> >
> > Can you please double confirm no other users for this mailbox and it's for
> > you only? And if so is it only specific to this platform that no other users?
> > At least on some UEFI AMD platforms that mailbox is defined for
> > communication with something else. We might need some way to attest
> > from the firmware that it's safe to use.
> >
> > The only mailbox that is defined for OS use across different silicon AFAIK is
> > the GPU driver mailbox. It may be safer to use that, but I'm not sure if
> > GPU driver has come up early enough for your use.
>
> The CCP/PSP driver will load as a PCIe device driver on this platform and
> will ioremap the MMIO space. Today, that driver doesn't reference those
> mailbox registers, and I don't know that there will be a need in the
> future. But if there is a need in the future, you could end up with a
> conflict between these two drivers.

Right, so I have confirmed this with AMD PSP firmware developers, that
this particular x86-PSP mailbox is created and will be reserved
_solely_ for the purpose of i2c arbitration (and thus this driver).
There is no intend to use it elsewhere or share with another users.

> Thanks,
> Tom
>
> >
> >>> Because of this I'm treating this as an i2c_semaphore-related code and
> >>> putting this in this module. In my opinion moving this into some
> >>> separate driver (which will be actually used only here) makes code
> >>> less clear. But let's also hear some voice from AMD.
> >>
> >> Since as you say this mailbox is special and only for i2c-arbitration,
> >> keeping it inside this patch / .c file is fine.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorta like the generic iosf_mbi_read() and
> >>>> iosf_mbi_write() functions from:
> >>>>
> >>>> arch/x86/platform/intel/iosf_mbi.c
> >>>>
> >>>> used on the Intel chips, which are also used outside of
> >>>> the I2C bus-locking code.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is also one of the reasons why I think it would be
> >>>> good to get some AMD folks involved in this, since they
> >>>> may be aware of other drivers which also need to access
> >>>> the PSP mbox.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Right, I'm adding mario.limonciello@amd.com to the CC, so that he can
> >> comment.
> >>>
> >>> (...)
> >>>
> >>>>> +/*
> >>>>> + * Locking methods are based on the default implementation from
> >>>>> + * drivers/i2c/i2c-core.base.c, but with psp acquire and release operations
> >>>>> + * added. With this in place we can ensure that i2c clients on the bus shared
> >>>>> + * with psp are able to lock HW access to the bus for arbitrary number of
> >>>>> + * operations - that is e.g. write-wait-read.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> +static void i2c_adapter_dw_psp_lock_bus(struct i2c_adapter *adapter,
> >>>>> + unsigned int flags)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + psp_acquire_i2c_bus();
> >>>>> + rt_mutex_lock_nested(&adapter->bus_lock,
> >> i2c_adapter_depth(adapter));
> >>>>
> >>>> This does not do what you think it does and you will still deadlock
> >>>> when things nest because of someone taking the bus-lock and then
> >>>> the main i2c-designware transfer function calling the acquire_lock
> >>>> callback.
> >>>
> >>> I haven't used rt_mutex_lock_nested() with the intent to prevent me
> >>> from deadlock when i2c-designware calls acquire_lock with bus-lock
> >>> already taken. This is a method copied from
> >>> drivers/i2c/i2c-core-base.c (BTW, I have a typo in above comment).
> >>> This is the default implementation applied by i2c-core when particular
> >>> adapter doesn't register its own locking callbacks - thus it is called
> >>> for i2c-designware for all platforms.
> >>>
> >>> In case of this driver internal i2c-designware acquire_lock() is equal
> >>> to psp_acquire_i2c_bus(). In other words, bus-level lock
> >>> i2c_adapter_dw_psp_lock_bus() is a superset of internal adapter's
> >>> acquire_lock().
> >>
> >> Ah I missed that this is just mimicking the core functions +
> >> an extra call to psp_acquire_i2c_bus().
> >>
> >> I assumed that the dwc->acquire callback path was also taking
> >> the mutex and I thought you had fallen for the _nested meaning
> >> something different then it does, my bad.
> >>
> >>> In order to prevent deadlock which you are talking about, I'm using
> >>> reference lock counter inside psp_acquire_i2c_bus() thus it is safe to
> >>> invoke acquire_lock() when bus-lock is already taken.
> >>
> >> Ah good, that is pretty much is the same as what the Bay Trail code
> >> is doing.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The _nested postfix is only for the lockdep lock-debugger, this
> >>>> actually turns into a regular mutex_lock when lockdep is not enabled:
> >>>>
> >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> >>>> extern void rt_mutex_lock_nested(struct rt_mutex *lock, unsigned int
> >> subclass);
> >>>> #define rt_mutex_lock(lock) rt_mutex_lock_nested(lock, 0)
> >>>> #else
> >>>> extern void rt_mutex_lock(struct rt_mutex *lock);
> >>>> #define rt_mutex_lock_nested(lock, subclass) rt_mutex_lock(lock)
> >>>> #endif
> >>>>
> >>>> The _nested postfix as such is only to tell the lockdep code that
> >>>> even though it seems we are trying to take the same mutex twice
> >>>> since in both cases it is of i2c_adapter.rt_mutex "lock class"
> >>>> that we are sure it is never the same i2c_adapter (but rather
> >>>> one which always gets called in a nested fashion from another
> >>>> i2c_adapter).
> >>>>
> >>>> IOW this only disables a false-positive lockdep warning, it does
> >>>> not allow taking the same mutex twice, you will still hang on
> >>>> the second mutex_lock call on the same lock.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the technical background about rt_mutex_lock_nested. I
> >>> think we should keep using it as is, since as I wrote above I don't
> >>> have any reasoning to modify it here.
> >>
> >> Ack, now that my misreading of the code has been cleared up
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >>>> Also I don't think you are allowed to use the bus_locking code
> >>>> like this. The i2c bus-locking code is intended to deal with
> >>>> busses which have muxes in them, where the mux must be set
> >>>> to the right branch of the bus to reach the client and then
> >>>> not be changed during the transfer to that client.
> >>>>
> >>>> So i2c-client drivers are never supposed to directly call
> >>>> the bus-locking functions.
> >>>
> >>> I think you are not correct here. There are examples of i2c-clients
> >>> which are using i2c bus_locking for the purpose of locking adapter for
> >>> the bunch of i2c transactions.
> >>>
> >>> As an example let's take drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_i2c_cr50.c. It
> >>> operates in write-wait-read model and there is i2c_lock_bus() call
> >>> used to ensure that bus won't be released -
> >>>
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
> >> om%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2Fdrivers%2Fchar%2Ftpm%2Ftpm_
> >> tis_i2c_cr50.c%23L202&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com
> >> %7C1bdc742bc2a24f59b7d908d9dcc95438%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994
> >> e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637783579554955840%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
> >> JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
> >> 3000&amp;sdata=fr0UEka%2BxYyPxqUG6oOZo%2Bc6pWgto2mD7hWA20YulVQ
> >> %3D&amp;reserved=0.
> >>>
> >>> Similar model is followed in drivers/char/tpm/tpm_i2c_infineon.c and
> >>> couple of other i2c-client drivers.
> >>
> >> Ah I see, interesting (live and learn).
> >>
> >> But this is then combined with using the special __i2c_transfer()
> >> function for the actual i2c reads/writes, since using the regular
> >> i2c_transfer() function after already taking the lock would deadlock.
> >>
> >> There is a similar unlocked raw __i2c_smbus_xfer(), but as the
> >> comment in include/linux/i2c.h above the locked i2c_smbus_xfer() says:
> >>
> >> /* This is the very generalized SMBus access routine. You probably do not
> >> want to use this, though; one of the functions below may be much easier,
> >> and probably just as fast.
> >> Note that we use i2c_adapter here, because you do not need a specific
> >> smbus adapter to call this function. */
> >> s32 i2c_smbus_xfer(...);
> >>
> >> So in this case a driver cannot use the usual
> >> i2c_smbus_read_byte/word/byte_data/word_data() helpers and
> >> the same for writes. Also using an i2c_regmap (which is used
> >> in a ton of places like PMIC drivers) will not work this way.
> >>
> >> So yes you can use i2c_bus_lock() for this; but only if all the
> >> drivers where you want to do that limit themselves to
> >> __i2c_transfer() and __i2c_smbus_xfer() calls and/or are
> >> rewritten to only use those.
> >>>> This is why in the Bay Trail case we have i2c-drivers
> >>>> directly calling iosf_mbi_block_punit_i2c_access() and
> >>>> iosf_mbi_unblock_punit_i2c_access() to lock the bus
> >>>> for multiple i2c-transfers. We can get away with this there
> >>>> because the bus in question is only used to access the
> >>>> PMIC and that PMIC is only used on Bay Trail (and CHT)
> >>>> boards, so the PMIC drivers can just hard-code these
> >>>> calls.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you need to take the PSP I2C semaphore for multiple
> >>>> transfers in some generic drivers, then I guess that the
> >>>> i2c-subsys will need to get some new i2c_adapter callbacks
> >>>> to acquire / release the bus for i2c-controllers where
> >>>> the bus/controller is shared with some co-processor like
> >>>> in the PSP case.
> >>>
> >>> This is exactly my intention to support generic i2c-clients drivers
> >>> without them being aware that i2c-adapter above is using some
> >>> semaphore/arbitration. Hopefully you can agree with me that currently
> >>> available bus_locking can be used and is enough for this purpose.
> >>
> >> It can be used, but with limitations, see above.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Also note that iosf_mbi_block_punit_i2c_access() and
> >>>> iosf_mbi_unblock_punit_i2c_access() do their own
> >>>> ref/lock-counting to allow calling them multiple times and
> >>>> the first block call takes the bus and the last unblock
> >>>> call releases it.
> >>>
> >>> This is exactly what I was talking about above and also implemented
> >>> within psp_acquire_i2c_bus() and psp_release_i2c_bus().
> >>
> >> Right, I was to quick in skimming over your code when
> >> I wrote down my concerns about there being a deadlock
> >> there, sorry.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Hans

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-24 14:42    [W:0.886 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site