[PATCH net-next v7 3/7] arch: x86: add IPC mailbox accessor function and add SoC register access

[Choong Yong Liang]

On 20/2/2025 1:01 am, David E. Box wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 08:46 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 2/6/25 05:18, Choong Yong Liang wrote:
>>>
>>> - Exports intel_pmc_ipc() for host access to the PMC IPC mailbox
>>> - Add support to use IPC command allows host to access SoC registers
>>> through PMC firmware that are otherwise inaccessible to the host due
>>> to security policies.
>> I'm not quite parsing that second bullet as a complete sentence.
>>
>> But that sounds scary! Why is the fact that they are "otherwise
>> inaccessible" relevant here?
> 
> The PMC IPC mailbox is a host interface to the PMC. Its purpose is to allow the
> host to access certain areas of the PMC that are restricted from direct MMIO
> access due to security policies. Other parts of the PMC are accessible via MMIO
> (most of what the intel_pmc_core driver touches with is MMIO), so I think the
> original statement was trying to explain why the mailbox is needed instead of
> MMIO in this case. However, I agree that the mention of security policies is not
> relevant to the change itself.
> 
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>> index 87198d957e2f..631c1f10776c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>>> @@ -688,6 +688,15 @@ config X86_AMD_PLATFORM_DEVICE
>>>   	  I2C and UART depend on COMMON_CLK to set clock. GPIO driver is
>>>   	  implemented under PINCTRL subsystem.
>>>   
>>> +config INTEL_PMC_IPC
>>> +	tristate "Intel Core SoC Power Management Controller IPC mailbox"
>>> +	depends on ACPI
>>> +	help
>>> +	  This option enables sideband register access support for Intel
>>> SoC
>>> +	  power management controller IPC mailbox.
>>> +
>>> +	  If you don't require the option or are in doubt, say N.
>>
>> Could we perhaps beef this up a bit to help users figure out if they
>> want to turn this on? Really the only word in the entire help text
>> that's useful is "Intel".
>>
>> I'm not even sure we *want* to expose this to users. Can we just leave
>> it as:
>>
>> 	config INTEL_PMC_IPC
>> 		def_tristate n
>> 		depends on ACPI
>>
>> so that it only gets enabled by the "select" in the other patches?
> 
> I agree with this change Choong. This can be selected by the driver that's using
> it. There's no need to expose it to users.
> 
>>
>>> + * Authors: Choong Yong Liang <yong.liang.choong at linux.intel.com>
>>> + *          David E. Box <david.e.box at linux.intel.com>
>>
>> I'd probably just leave the authors bit out. It might have been useful
>> in the 90's, but that's what git is for today.
>>
>>> +	obj = buffer.pointer;
>>> +	/* Check if the number of elements in package is 5 */
>>> +	if (obj && obj->type == ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE && obj->package.count ==
>>> 5) {
>>> +		const union acpi_object *objs = obj->package.elements;
>>> +
>>
>> The comment there is just not super useful. It might be useful to say
>> *why* the number of elements needs to be 5.
>>
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(intel_pmc_ipc);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Intel PMC IPC Mailbox accessor");
>>
>> Honestly, is this even worth being a module? How much code are we
>> talking about here?
> 
> Yeah, this doesn't need to be a module either.
> 
> David
> 

Hi David,

Thank you for the confirmation.
Let's work together to address the comments.