[v5,00/17] Qcom: LLCC/EDAC: Fix base address used for LLCC banks

  The Qualcomm LLCC/EDAC drivers were using a fixed register stride for
accessing the (Control and Status Regsiters) CSRs of each LLCC bank.
This offset only works for some SoCs like SDM845 for which driver support
was initially added.
    
But the later SoCs use different register stride that vary between the
banks with holes in-between. So it is not possible to use a single register
stride for accessing the CSRs of each bank. By doing so could result in a
crash with the current drivers. So far this crash is not reported since
EDAC_QCOM driver is not enabled in ARM64 defconfig and no one tested the
driver extensively by triggering the EDAC IRQ (that's where each bank
CSRs are accessed).

For fixing this issue, let's obtain the base address of each LLCC bank from
devicetree and get rid of the fixed stride.

This series has been tested on SM8250, SM8450, SM6350, SC8280XP, SA8540P,
and SDM845.

Merging strategy
----------------

Patches 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 can be merged independently to EDAC tree. Rest of
the patches should be merged to qcom tree due to LLCC dependency.

Thanks,
Mani

Changes in v5:

* Reduced the size of llcc0 to 0x45000 on SDM845 due to overlapping with BWMON
* Added a patch to disable creation of EDAC platform device on SDM845
* Rebase on top of v6.2-rc1
* Moved the EDAC specific patches to the start so that they can be applied
  independently of LLCC patches

Changes in v4:

* Added a patch that fixes the use-after-free bug in qcom_edac driver

Changes in v3:

* Brought back reg-names property for compatibility (Krzysztof)
* Removed Fixes tag and stable list as backporting the drivers/binding/dts
  patches alone would break (Krzysztof)
* Fixed the uninitialized variable issue (Kbot)
* Added a patch to make use of driver supplied polling interval (Luca)
* Added a patch for module autoloading (Andrew)
* Didn't collect Review tags from Sai as the dts patches were changed.

Changes in v2:

* Removed reg-names property and used index of reg property to parse LLCC
  bank base address (Bjorn)
* Collected Ack from Sai for binding
* Added a new patch for polling mode (Luca)
* Renamed subject of patches targeting SC7180 and SM6350

Manivannan Sadhasivam (17):
  EDAC/device: Make use of poll_msec value in edac_device_ctl_info
    struct
  EDAC/qcom: Add platform_device_id table for module autoloading
  EDAC/qcom: Do not pass llcc_driv_data as edac_device_ctl_info's
    pvt_info
  dt-bindings: arm: msm: Update the maintainers for LLCC
  dt-bindings: arm: msm: Fix register regions used for LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm8150: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm8350: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm6350: Fix the base addresses of LLCC banks
  qcom: llcc/edac: Fix the base address used for accessing LLCC banks
  qcom: llcc/edac: Support polling mode for ECC handling
  soc: qcom: llcc: Do not create EDAC platform device on SDM845

 .../bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.yaml           | 128 ++++++++++++++++--
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi          |   2 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi          |   5 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi        |  10 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi          |   7 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi          |   2 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi          |   7 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi          |   7 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8350.dtsi          |   7 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi          |   7 +-
 drivers/edac/edac_device.c                    |   2 +-
 drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c                      |  63 +++++----
 drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c                  |  80 ++++++-----
 include/linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h            |   6 +-
 14 files changed, 244 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
  

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:10:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Patches 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 can be merged independently to EDAC tree. Rest of
> the patches should be merged to qcom tree due to LLCC dependency.

Why make it more complicated than it has to be?

How about I review the EDAC bits and once they look ok, whoever takes
care of the qcom tree can pick them up too and route the whole pile
through there?

This way there's no needless dependency between trees...

Hmm.
  

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:36:06AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 02:10:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Patches 1/17, 2/17 and 3/17 can be merged independently to EDAC tree. Rest of
> > the patches should be merged to qcom tree due to LLCC dependency.
> 
> Why make it more complicated than it has to be?
> 
> How about I review the EDAC bits and once they look ok, whoever takes
> care of the qcom tree can pick them up too and route the whole pile
> through there?
> 

Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their
tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series.

> This way there's no needless dependency between trees...
> 

If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not have any
issue :)

Thanks,
Mani

> Hmm.
> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
  

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their
> tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series.

Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees,
they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the
next time.

> If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not
> have any issue :)

I'm reviewing.
  

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:55:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their
> > tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series.
> 
> Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees,
> they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the
> next time.
> 
> > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not
> > have any issue :)
> 
> I'm reviewing.
> 

Ok! I'll wait for your reviews on the rest of the EDAC patches before doing the
respin.

Thanks,
Mani

> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
  

On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 11:00:45PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:55:47PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:17:11PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > Well, some maintainers prefer to pick the independent patches through their
> > > tree. That's why I moved those patches to the start of the series.
> > 
> > Once some maintainers experience a crazy dependency hell between trees,
> > they would find routing it all through a single tree a lot easier the
> > next time.
> > 
> > > If you are fine with all patches going through qcom tree, I do not
> > > have any issue :)
> > 
> > I'm reviewing.
> > 
> 
> Ok! I'll wait for your reviews on the rest of the EDAC patches before doing the
> respin.
> 

Ping!

Thanks,
Mani

> Thanks,
> Mani
> 
> > -- 
> > Regards/Gruss,
> >     Boris.
> > 
> > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
> 
> -- 
> மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்