Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] i3c: dw-i3c-master: Add ACPI core clock frequency quirk

Akhil R <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-hwmon,dev.linux.lists.sashiko-reviews,org.infradead.lists.linux-i3c,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 04:26:15 +0000, Sashiko AI review <[email protected]> wrote:
> commit f3333de342eb1c266eb94909516ea27afe8378d5
> Author: Akhil R <[email protected]>
>
> i3c: dw-i3c-master: Add ACPI core clock frequency quirk
>
> Some ACPI-enumerated devices like Tegra410 do not expose the controller
> core clock through the clk framework. Unlike device tree, ACPI on Arm does
> not model clock providers. The hardware is expected to have its clocks
> enabled by firmware before the OS takes over.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c b/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
> > index 29030fd9594aa..3ec3ab1c13b4c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i3c/master/dw-i3c-master.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -556,13 +557,33 @@ static void dw_i3c_master_set_intr_regs(struct dw_i3c_master *master)
> > +static unsigned long dw_i3c_master_get_core_rate(struct dw_i3c_master *master)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int core_rate_prop;
> > +
> > +	if (master->core_clk)
> > +		return clk_get_rate(master->core_clk);
> > +
> > +	if (!(master->quirks & DW_I3C_ACPI_SKIP_CLK_RST)) {
> > +		dev_err(master->dev, "missing core clock\n");
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
>
> [Severity: Low]
> Is this check reachable?
>
> During initialization in dw_i3c_common_probe(), if the core clock is missing
> and DW_I3C_ACPI_SKIP_CLK_RST is not set, probe immediately aborts with -EINVAL.
>
> By the time dw_i3c_master_get_core_rate() is executed, it seems guaranteed
> that if core_clk is missing, the DW_I3C_ACPI_SKIP_CLK_RST quirk is already
> set, making this fallback check dead code.

The check is defensive and is harmless. I believe it adds to readability,
but can be cleaned up if preferred.

> > +
> > +	if (device_property_read_u32(master->dev, "clock-frequency", &core_rate_prop)) {
> > +		dev_err(master->dev, "missing clock-frequency property\n");
> > +		return 0;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return core_rate_prop;
> > +}
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1573,14 +1594,28 @@ int dw_i3c_common_probe(struct dw_i3c_master *master,
> > +	if (has_acpi_companion(&pdev->dev)) {
> > +		quirks = (unsigned long)device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > +	} else if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
>
> [Severity: High]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but since this block was
> relocated, I noticed a potential issue for devices using ACPI PRP0001.
>
> If the device is instantiated via ACPI using the PRP0001 HID,
> device_get_match_data() correctly falls back to the OF match table and
> returns a pointer to struct dw_i3c_drvdata.
>
> Does casting this pointer to an unsigned long and assigning it to
> master->quirks cause random kernel pointers to be used as a quirk bitmask?
> Depending on the kernel layout, this might cause erratic driver behavior such
> as missing PM operations.

> > +		drvdata = device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > +		if (drvdata)
> > +			quirks = drvdata->flags;
> > +	}
> > +	master->quirks = quirks;
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > @@ -1636,15 +1671,6 @@ int dw_i3c_common_probe(struct dw_i3c_master *master,
> > -	if (has_acpi_companion(&pdev->dev)) {
> > -		quirks = (unsigned long)device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > -	} else if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> > -		drvdata = device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> > -		if (drvdata)
> > -			quirks = drvdata->flags;
> > -	}
> > -	master->quirks = quirks;
> > -
>
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but I noticed a potential problem in the device
> removal path regarding runtime PM state.
>
> When the driver is unbound, dw_i3c_common_remove() calls
> i3c_master_unregister(), which internally calls dw_i3c_master_bus_cleanup().
> The dw_i3c_master_bus_cleanup() function accesses the DEVICE_CTRL MMIO
> register. Because the driver does not wake the device via
> pm_runtime_get_sync() before unregistration, the device may be in a
> runtime-suspended state with its core clocks disabled.
>
> Could this cause a fatal bus fault on platforms like ARM due to unclocked MMIO
> accesses? Additionally, if the device remains suspended, will the subsequent
> devres cleanup attempt to disable the already-disabled clocks, causing a clock
> enable counter underflow warning?

These are existing issues in the driver. It would be better to address them
separately.

Best Regards,
Akhil
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.