Re: [PATCH 3/9] powerpc/pseries: Add cpu DLPAR support for drc-info property
Tyrel Datwyler writes:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
> index bbda646..9ba006c 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
> @@ -730,24 +774,49 @@ static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32
> cpus_to_add)
> return -1;
> }
>
> - /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
> - * add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
> - * the number of entries in the array followed by the array
> - * of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
> - */
> - index = 1;
> - while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
> - u32 drc;
> + info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
> + if (info) {
> + struct of_drc_info drc;
> + const __be32 *value;
> + int count;
>
> - rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
> - index++, );
> - if (rc)
> - break;
> + value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
> + if (value)
> + value++;
>
> - if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc))
> - continue;
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + of_read_drc_info_cell(, , );
> + if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
> + break;
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems && cpus_found
> < cpus_to_add; j++) {
This line's nearly 100 columns, which suggests that this logic has
gotten too convoluted to be a single function.
So I think you should split one or both arms of the if out into separate
functions.
You're basically doing nothing after the if, so possibly you can just
return the result of the split out functions directly.
cheers
> + drc_index = drc.drc_index_start +
> (drc.sequential_inc * j);
> +
> + if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc_index))
> + continue;
> +
> + cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc_index;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
> + * add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
> + * the number of entries in the array followed by the array
> + * of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
> + */
> + index = 1;
> + while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
> + rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent,
> "ibm,drc-indexes",
> + index++, _index);
> +
> + if (rc)
> + break;
>
> - cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc;
> + if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc_index))
> + continue;
> +
> + cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc_index;
> + }
> }
>
> of_node_put(parent);
Re: [PATCH 3/9] powerpc/pseries: Add cpu DLPAR support for drc-info property
On 11/5/19 8:55 AM, Thomas Falcon wrote:
>
> On 11/5/19 9:24 AM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
>> From: Tyrel Datwyler
>>
>> Older firmwares provided information about Dynamic Reconfig
>> Connectors (DRC) through several device tree properties, namely
>> ibm,drc-types, ibm,drc-indexes, ibm,drc-names, and
>> ibm,drc-power-domains. New firmwares have the ability to present this
>> same information in a much condensed format through a device tree
>> property called ibm,drc-info.
>>
>> The existing cpu DLPAR hotplug code only understands the older DRC
>> property format when validating the drc-index of a cpu during a
>> hotplug add. This updates those code paths to use the ibm,drc-info
>> property, when present, instead for validation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 101
>> ++-
>> 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> index bbda646..9ba006c 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
>> @@ -407,17 +407,58 @@ static bool dlpar_cpu_exists(struct device_node
>> *parent,
>> u32 drc_index)
>> return found;
>> }
>>
>> +static bool drc_info_valid_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
>> +{
>> + struct property *info;
>> + struct of_drc_info drc;
>> + const __be32 *value;
>> + int count, i, j;
>> +
>> + info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
>> + if (!info)
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
>> +
>> + /* First value of ibm,drc-info is number of drc-info records */
>> + if (value)
>> + value++;
>> + else
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> + if (of_read_drc_info_cell(, , ))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + if (drc_index > drc.last_drc_index)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems; j++)
>> + if (drc_index == (drc.drc_index_start + (drc.sequential_inc *
>> j)))
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> static bool valid_cpu_drc_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
>> {
>> bool found = false;
>> int rc, index;
>>
>> - index = 0;
>> + if (of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL))
>> + return drc_info_valid_index(parent, drc_index);
>> +
>> + index = 1;
>
> Hi, this change was confusing to me until I continued reading the patch and
> saw
> the comment below regarding the first element of the ibm,drc-info property.
> Would it be good to have a similar comment here too?
>
Yeah, clearly wouldn't hurt. Probably should split it out into a separate fix
prior to this patch.
>
>> while (!found) {
>> u32 drc;
>>
>> rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
>> index++, );
>> +
>
> Another nitpick but this could be cleaned up.
Yep, noticed the newline addition after I'd already sent it out.
-Tyrel
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
>
>> if (rc)
>> break;
>>
>> @@ -720,8 +761,11 @@ static int dlpar_cpu_remove_by_count(u32 cpus_to_remove)
>> static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32 cpus_to_add)
>> {
>> struct device_node *parent;
>> + struct property *info;
>> int cpus_found = 0;
>> int index, rc;
>> + int i, j;
>> + u32 drc_index;
>>
>> parent = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
>> if (!parent) {
>> @@ -730,24 +774,49 @@ static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32
>> cpus_to_add)
>> return -1;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
>> - * add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
>> - * the number of entries in the array followed by the array
>> - * of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
>> - */
>> - index = 1;
>> - while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
>> - u32 drc;
>> + info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
>> + if (info) {
>> + struct of_drc_info drc;
>> + const __be32 *value;
>> + int count;
>>
>> - rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
>> - index++, );
>> - if (rc)
>> - break;
>> + value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
>> + if (value)
>> + value++;
>>
>> - if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc))
>> - continue;
>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> + of_read_drc_info_cell(, , );
>> + if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
>> + break;
>> +
>> + for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems && cpus_found <
Re: [PATCH 3/9] powerpc/pseries: Add cpu DLPAR support for drc-info property
On 11/5/19 9:24 AM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
From: Tyrel Datwyler
Older firmwares provided information about Dynamic Reconfig
Connectors (DRC) through several device tree properties, namely
ibm,drc-types, ibm,drc-indexes, ibm,drc-names, and
ibm,drc-power-domains. New firmwares have the ability to present this
same information in a much condensed format through a device tree
property called ibm,drc-info.
The existing cpu DLPAR hotplug code only understands the older DRC
property format when validating the drc-index of a cpu during a
hotplug add. This updates those code paths to use the ibm,drc-info
property, when present, instead for validation.
Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 101 ++-
1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
index bbda646..9ba006c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
@@ -407,17 +407,58 @@ static bool dlpar_cpu_exists(struct device_node *parent,
u32 drc_index)
return found;
}
+static bool drc_info_valid_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
+{
+ struct property *info;
+ struct of_drc_info drc;
+ const __be32 *value;
+ int count, i, j;
+
+ info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
+ if (!info)
+ return false;
+
+ value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
+
+ /* First value of ibm,drc-info is number of drc-info records */
+ if (value)
+ value++;
+ else
+ return false;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ if (of_read_drc_info_cell(, , ))
+ return false;
+
+ if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
+ break;
+
+ if (drc_index > drc.last_drc_index)
+ continue;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems; j++)
+ if (drc_index == (drc.drc_index_start +
(drc.sequential_inc * j)))
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
static bool valid_cpu_drc_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
{
bool found = false;
int rc, index;
- index = 0;
+ if (of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL))
+ return drc_info_valid_index(parent, drc_index);
+
+ index = 1;
Hi, this change was confusing to me until I continued reading the patch
and saw the comment below regarding the first element of the
ibm,drc-info property. Would it be good to have a similar comment here too?
while (!found) {
u32 drc;
rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
index++, );
+
Another nitpick but this could be cleaned up.
Thanks,
Tom
if (rc)
break;
@@ -720,8 +761,11 @@ static int dlpar_cpu_remove_by_count(u32 cpus_to_remove)
static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32 cpus_to_add)
{
struct device_node *parent;
+ struct property *info;
int cpus_found = 0;
int index, rc;
+ int i, j;
+ u32 drc_index;
parent = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
if (!parent) {
@@ -730,24 +774,49 @@ static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32
cpus_to_add)
return -1;
}
- /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
-* add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
-* the number of entries in the array followed by the array
-* of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
-*/
- index = 1;
- while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
- u32 drc;
+ info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
+ if (info) {
+ struct of_drc_info drc;
+ const __be32 *value;
+ int count;
- rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
- index++, );
- if (rc)
- break;
+ value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
+ if (value)
+ value++;
- if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc))
- continue;
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ of_read_drc_info_cell(, , );
+ if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
+ break;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems && cpus_found
< cpus_to_add; j++) {
+ drc_index = drc.drc_index_start +
(drc.sequential_inc * j);
+
+ if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent,
[PATCH 3/9] powerpc/pseries: Add cpu DLPAR support for drc-info property
From: Tyrel Datwyler
Older firmwares provided information about Dynamic Reconfig
Connectors (DRC) through several device tree properties, namely
ibm,drc-types, ibm,drc-indexes, ibm,drc-names, and
ibm,drc-power-domains. New firmwares have the ability to present this
same information in a much condensed format through a device tree
property called ibm,drc-info.
The existing cpu DLPAR hotplug code only understands the older DRC
property format when validating the drc-index of a cpu during a
hotplug add. This updates those code paths to use the ibm,drc-info
property, when present, instead for validation.
Signed-off-by: Tyrel Datwyler
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 101 ++-
1 file changed, 85 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
index bbda646..9ba006c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c
@@ -407,17 +407,58 @@ static bool dlpar_cpu_exists(struct device_node *parent,
u32 drc_index)
return found;
}
+static bool drc_info_valid_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
+{
+ struct property *info;
+ struct of_drc_info drc;
+ const __be32 *value;
+ int count, i, j;
+
+ info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
+ if (!info)
+ return false;
+
+ value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
+
+ /* First value of ibm,drc-info is number of drc-info records */
+ if (value)
+ value++;
+ else
+ return false;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ if (of_read_drc_info_cell(, , ))
+ return false;
+
+ if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
+ break;
+
+ if (drc_index > drc.last_drc_index)
+ continue;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems; j++)
+ if (drc_index == (drc.drc_index_start +
(drc.sequential_inc * j)))
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
static bool valid_cpu_drc_index(struct device_node *parent, u32 drc_index)
{
bool found = false;
int rc, index;
- index = 0;
+ if (of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL))
+ return drc_info_valid_index(parent, drc_index);
+
+ index = 1;
while (!found) {
u32 drc;
rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
index++, );
+
if (rc)
break;
@@ -720,8 +761,11 @@ static int dlpar_cpu_remove_by_count(u32 cpus_to_remove)
static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32 cpus_to_add)
{
struct device_node *parent;
+ struct property *info;
int cpus_found = 0;
int index, rc;
+ int i, j;
+ u32 drc_index;
parent = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
if (!parent) {
@@ -730,24 +774,49 @@ static int find_dlpar_cpus_to_add(u32 *cpu_drcs, u32
cpus_to_add)
return -1;
}
- /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
-* add. Note that the format of the ibm,drc-indexes array is
-* the number of entries in the array followed by the array
-* of drc values so we start looking at index = 1.
-*/
- index = 1;
- while (cpus_found < cpus_to_add) {
- u32 drc;
+ info = of_find_property(parent, "ibm,drc-info", NULL);
+ if (info) {
+ struct of_drc_info drc;
+ const __be32 *value;
+ int count;
- rc = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "ibm,drc-indexes",
- index++, );
- if (rc)
- break;
+ value = of_prop_next_u32(info, NULL, );
+ if (value)
+ value++;
- if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc))
- continue;
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ of_read_drc_info_cell(, , );
+ if (strncmp(drc.drc_type, "CPU", 3))
+ break;
+
+ for (j = 0; j < drc.num_sequential_elems && cpus_found
< cpus_to_add; j++) {
+ drc_index = drc.drc_index_start +
(drc.sequential_inc * j);
+
+ if (dlpar_cpu_exists(parent, drc_index))
+ continue;
+
+ cpu_drcs[cpus_found++] = drc_index;
+ }
+ }
+ } else {
+ /* Search the ibm,drc-indexes array for possible CPU drcs to
+* add. Note that the format of the
