[PATCH v4 11/13] hwmon: peci: Add dimmtemp driver

[Winiarska, Iwona]

On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 07:56 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 03:07:04PM +0100, Iwona Winiarska wrote:
> > Add peci-dimmtemp driver for Temperature Sensor on DIMM readings that
> > are accessible via the processor PECI interface.
> > 
> > The main use case for the driver (and PECI interface) is out-of-band
> > management, where we're able to obtain thermal readings from an external
> > entity connected with PECI, e.g. BMC on server platforms.
> > 
> > Co-developed-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Iwona Winiarska <iwona.winiarska at intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > +static int check_populated_dimms(struct peci_dimmtemp *priv)
> > +{
> > +       int chan_rank_max = priv->gen_info->chan_rank_max;
> > +       int dimm_idx_max = priv->gen_info->dimm_idx_max;
> > +       u32 chan_rank_empty = 0;
> > +       u64 dimm_mask = 0;
> > +       int chan_rank, dimm_idx, ret;
> > +       u32 pcs;
> > +
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(chan_rank_empty) < CHAN_RANK_MAX);
> > +       BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(dimm_mask) < DIMM_NUMS_MAX);
> > +       if (chan_rank_max * dimm_idx_max > DIMM_NUMS_MAX) {
> > +               WARN_ONCE(1, "Unsupported number of DIMMs - chan_rank_max:
> > %d, dimm_idx_max: %d",
> > +                         chan_rank_max, dimm_idx_max);
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       for (chan_rank = 0; chan_rank < chan_rank_max; chan_rank++) {
> > +               ret = peci_pcs_read(priv->peci_dev, PECI_PCS_DDR_DIMM_TEMP,
> > chan_rank, &pcs);
> > +               if (ret) {
> > +                       /*
> > +                        * Overall, we expect either success or -EINVAL in
> > +                        * order to determine whether DIMM is populated or
> > not.
> > +                        * For anything else we fall back to deferring the
> > +                        * detection to be performed at a later point in
> > time.
> > +                        */
> > +                       if (ret == -EINVAL) {
> > +                               chan_rank_empty |= BIT(chan_rank);
> > +                               continue;
> > +                       }
> > +
> > +                       return -EAGAIN;
> > +               }
> > +
> > +               for (dimm_idx = 0; dimm_idx < dimm_idx_max; dimm_idx++)
> > +                       if (__dimm_temp(pcs, dimm_idx))
> > +                               dimm_mask |= BIT(chan_rank * dimm_idx_max +
> > dimm_idx);
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * If we got all -EINVALs, it means that the CPU doesn't have any
> > +        * DIMMs. Unfortunately, it may also happen at the very start of
> > +        * host platform boot. Retrying a couple of times lets us make sure
> > +        * that the state is persistent.
> > +        */
> > +       if (chan_rank_empty == GENMASK(chan_rank_max - 1, 0)) {
> > +               if (priv->no_dimm_retry_count < NO_DIMM_RETRY_COUNT_MAX) {
> > +                       priv->no_dimm_retry_count++;
> > +
> > +                       return -EAGAIN;
> > +               } else {
> > +                       return -ENODEV;
> > +               }
> 
> Static analyzers will complain "else after return is unnecessary".

I'll fix this in v5.

Thanks
-Iwona

> 
> Guenter