Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 21:29:19 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     andersson@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, bp@alien8.de,
        tony.luck@intel.com, quic_saipraka@quicinc.com,
        konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
        mchehab@kernel.org, rric@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        quic_ppareek@quicinc.com, luca.weiss@fairphone.com,
        ahalaney@redhat.com, steev@kali.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 17/17] soc: qcom: llcc: Do not create EDAC platform
 device on SDM845
Message-ID: <20230118155919.GD4690@thinkpad>
References: <20230118150904.26913-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20230118150904.26913-18-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <d3cd9b7a-6286-a140-d205-6d4b6ca8092d@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d3cd9b7a-6286-a140-d205-6d4b6ca8092d@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 04:37:29PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/01/2023 16:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers in the
> > bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash. Hence,
> > disable the creation of EDAC platform device on all SDM845 devices.
> > 
> > The issue has been observed on Lenovo Yoga C630 and DB845c.
> > 
> > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.10
> > Reported-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > index 7b7c5a38bac6..8d840702df50 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
> > @@ -1012,11 +1012,18 @@ static int qcom_llcc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  
> >  	drv_data->ecc_irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> >  
> > -	llcc_edac = platform_device_register_data(&pdev->dev,
> > -					"qcom_llcc_edac", -1, drv_data,
> > -					sizeof(*drv_data));
> > -	if (IS_ERR(llcc_edac))
> > -		dev_err(dev, "Failed to register llcc edac driver\n");
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The platforms based on SDM845 SoC locks the access to EDAC registers
> > +	 * in bootloader. So probing the EDAC driver will result in a crash.
> > +	 * Hence, disable the creation of EDAC platform device on SDM845.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "qcom,sdm845-llcc")) {
> 
> Don't spread of_device_is_compatible() in driver code. You have driver
> data for this.
> 

Yeah, but there is no ID to in the driver data to identify an SoC. I could add
one but is that really worth doing so? Is using of_device_is_compatible() in
drivers discouraged nowadays?

Thanks,
Mani

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்