Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-273-g8500d2492d-fm-20210323.002-g8500d249
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <6ff29d26-543a-4790-abb4-ebaa3f8d0265@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210408121441.GG7166@minyard.net>
References: <20210319061952.145040-1-andrew@aj.id.au>
 <2db77e16-3f44-4c02-a7ba-a4fac8141ae3@www.fastmail.com>
 <20210408121441.GG7166@minyard.net>
Date:   Fri, 09 Apr 2021 09:16:35 +0930
From:   "Andrew Jeffery" <andrew@aj.id.au>
To:     "Corey Minyard" <minyard@acm.org>
Cc:     openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        "Joel Stanley" <joel@jms.id.au>,
        "Ryan Chen" <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        "Tomer Maimon" <tmaimon77@gmail.com>,
        linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        "Avi Fishman" <avifishman70@gmail.com>,
        "Patrick Venture" <venture@google.com>,
        "Linus Walleij" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Tali Perry" <tali.perry1@gmail.com>,
        "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        "Chia-Wei, Wang" <chiawei_wang@aspeedtech.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        "Benjamin Fair" <benjaminfair@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] ipmi: Allow raw access to KCS devices
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, at 21:44, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:27:46AM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > Hi Corey,
> > 
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2021, at 16:49, Andrew Jeffery wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > This series is a bit of a mix of things, but its primary purpose is to
> > > expose BMC KCS IPMI devices to userspace in a way that enables userspace
> > > to talk to host firmware using protocols that are not IPMI.
> > > 
> > > v1 can be found here:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/openbmc/20210219142523.3464540-1-andrew@aj.id.au/
> > > 
> > > Changes in v2 include:
> > > 
> > > * A rebase onto v5.12-rc2
> > > * Incorporation of off-list feedback on SerIRQ configuration from
> > >   Chiawei
> > > * Further validation on hardware for ASPEED KCS devices 2, 3 and 4
> > > * Lifting the existing single-open constraint of the IPMI chardev
> > > * Fixes addressing Rob's feedback on the conversion of the ASPEED KCS
> > >   binding to dt-schema
> > > * Fixes addressing Rob's feedback on the new aspeed,lpc-interrupts
> > >   property definition for the ASPEED KCS binding
> > > 
> > > A new chardev device is added whose implementation exposes the Input
> > > Data Register (IDR), Output Data Register (ODR) and Status Register
> > > (STR) via read() and write(), and implements poll() for event
> > > monitoring.
> > > 
> > > The existing /dev/ipmi-kcs* chardev interface exposes the KCS devices in
> > > a way which encoded the IPMI protocol in its behaviour. However, as
> > > LPC[0] KCS devices give us bi-directional interrupts between the host
> > > and a BMC with both a data and status byte, they are useful for purposes
> > > beyond IPMI.
> > > 
> > > As a concrete example, libmctp[1] implements a vendor-defined MCTP[2]
> > > binding using a combination of LPC Firmware cycles for bulk data
> > > transfer and a KCS device via LPC IO cycles for out-of-band protocol
> > > control messages[3]. This gives a throughput improvement over the
> > > standard KCS binding[4] while continuing to exploit the ease of setup of
> > > the LPC bus for early boot firmware on the host processor.
> > > 
> > > The series takes a bit of a winding path to achieve its aim:
> > > 
> > > 1. It begins with patches 1-5 put together by Chia-Wei, which I've
> > > rebased on v5.12-rc2. These fix the ASPEED LPC bindings and other
> > > non-KCS LPC-related ASPEED device drivers in a way that enables the
> > > SerIRQ patches at the end of the series. With Joel's review I'm hoping
> > > these 5 can go through the aspeed tree, and that the rest can go through
> > > the IPMI tree.
> > > 
> > > 2. Next, patches 6-13 fairly heavily refactor the KCS support in the
> > > IPMI part of the tree, re-architecting things such that it's possible to
> > > support multiple chardev implementations sitting on top of the ASPEED
> > > and Nuvoton device drivers. However, the KCS code didn't really have
> > > great separation of concerns as it stood, so even if we disregard the
> > > multiple-chardev support I think the cleanups are worthwhile.
> > > 
> > > 3. Patch 14 adds some interrupt management capabilities to the KCS
> > > device drivers in preparation for patch 16, which introduces the new
> > > "raw" KCS device interface. I'm not stoked about the device name/path,
> > > so if people are looking to bikeshed something then feel free to lay
> > > into that.
> > > 
> > > 4. The remaining patches switch the ASPEED KCS devicetree binding to
> > > dt-schema, add a new interrupt property to describe the SerIRQ behaviour
> > > of the device and finally clean up Serial IRQ support in the ASPEED KCS
> > > driver.
> > > 
> > > Rob: The dt-binding patches still come before the relevant driver
> > > changes, I tried to keep the two close together in the series, hence the
> > > bindings changes not being patches 1 and 2.
> > > 
> > > I've exercised the series under qemu with the rainier-bmc machine plus
> > > additional patches for KCS support[5]. I've also substituted this series in
> > > place of a hacky out-of-tree driver that we've been using for the
> > > libmctp stack and successfully booted the host processor under our
> > > internal full-platform simulation tools for a Rainier system.
> > > 
> > > Note that this work touches the Nuvoton driver as well as ASPEED's, but
> > > I don't have the capability to test those changes or the IPMI chardev
> > > path. Tested-by tags would be much appreciated if you can exercise one
> > > or both.
> > > 
> > > Please review!
> > 
> > Unfortunately the cover letter got detached from the rest of the series.
> > 
> > Any chance you can take a look at the patches?
> 
> There were some minor concerns that were unanswered, and there really
> was no review by others for many of the patches.

Right; I was planning to clean up the minor concerns once I'd received 
some more feedback. I could have done a better job of communicating 
that :)

> 
> I would like this patch set, it makes some good cleanups.  But I would
> like some more review and testing by others, if possible. 

No worries. I'm trying to rope some others in to take a look.

Thanks for the response.

Andrew