[PATCH 04/15] platform/x86/amd/pmf: Add support for PMF Policy Binary

[Ilpo Järvinen]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:

> PMF Policy binary is a encrypted and signed binary that will be part
> of the BIOS. PMF driver via the ACPI interface checks the existence
> of Smart PC bit. If the advertised bit is found, PMF driver walks
> the acpi namespace to find out the policy binary size and the address
> which has to be passed to the TA during the TA init sequence.
> 
> The policy binary is comprised of inputs (or the events) and outputs
> (or the actions). With the PMF ecosystem, OEMs generate the policy
> binary (or could be multiple binaries) that contains a supported set
> of inputs and outputs which could be specifically carved out for each
> usage segment (or for each user also) that could influence the system
> behavior either by enriching the user experience or/and boost/throttle
> power limits.
> 
> Once the TA init command succeeds, the PMF driver sends the changing
> events in the current environment to the TA for a constant sampling
> frequency time (the event here could be a lid close or open) and
> if the policy binary has corresponding action built within it, the
> TA sends the action for it in the subsequent enact command.
> 
> If the inputs sent to the TA has no output defined in the policy
> binary generated by OEMs, there will be no action to be performed
> by the PMF driver.
> 
> Example policies:
> 
> 1) if slider is performance ; set the SPL to 40W
> Here PMF driver registers with the platform profile interface and
> when the slider position is changed, PMF driver lets the TA know
> about this. TA sends back an action to update the Sustained
> Power Limit (SPL). PMF driver updates this limit via the PMFW mailbox.
> 
> 2) if user_away ; then lock the system
> Here PMF driver hooks to the AMD SFH driver to know the user presence
> and send the inputs to TA and if the condition is met, the TA sends
> the action of locking the system. PMF driver generates a uevent and
> based on the udev rule in the userland the system gets locked with
> systemctl.
> 
> The intent here is to provide the OEM's to make a policy to lock the
> system when the user is away ; but the userland can make a choice to
> ignore it.
> 
> and so on.
> 
> The OEMs will have an utility to create numerous such policies and
> the policies shall be reviewed by AMD before signing and encrypting
> them. Policies are shared between operating systems to have seemless user
> experience.
> 
> Since all this action has to happen via the "amdtee" driver, currently
> there is no caller for it in the kernel which can load the amdtee driver.
> Without amdtee driver loading onto the system the "tee" calls shall fail
> from the PMF driver. Hence an explicit "request_module" has been added
> to address this.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k at amd.com>
> ---

> +struct pmf_action_table {
> +	unsigned long spl; /* in mW */
> +	unsigned long sppt; /* in mW */
> +	unsigned long sppt_apuonly; /* in mW */
> +	unsigned long fppt; /* in mW */
> +	unsigned long stt_minlimit; /* in mW */
> +	unsigned long stt_skintemp_apu; /* in C */
> +	unsigned long stt_skintemp_hs2; /* in C */
> +};

> +static void amd_pmf_apply_policies(struct amd_pmf_dev *dev, struct ta_pmf_enact_result *out)
> +{
> +	u32 val;
> +	int idx;
> +
> +	for (idx = 0; idx < out->actions_count; idx++) {
> +		val = out->actions_list[idx].value;
> +		switch (out->actions_list[idx].action_index) {
> +		case PMF_POLICY_SPL:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->spl != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_SPL, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update SPL : %d\n", val);

The %d does not match u32.

> +				dev->prev_data->spl = val;

Why is ->spl (and the others too) unsigned long if it's only assigned u32?

> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_SPPT:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->sppt != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_SPPT, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update SPPT : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->sppt = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_FPPT:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->fppt != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_FPPT, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update FPPT : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->fppt = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_SPPT_APU_ONLY:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->sppt_apuonly != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_SPPT_APU_ONLY, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update SPPT_APU_ONLY : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->sppt_apuonly = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_STT_MIN:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->stt_minlimit != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_STT_MIN_LIMIT, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update STT_MIN : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->stt_minlimit = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_STT_SKINTEMP_APU:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->stt_skintemp_apu != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_STT_LIMIT_APU, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update STT_SKINTEMP_APU : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->stt_skintemp_apu = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +
> +		case PMF_POLICY_STT_SKINTEMP_HS2:
> +			if (dev->prev_data->stt_skintemp_hs2 != val) {
> +				amd_pmf_send_cmd(dev, SET_STT_LIMIT_HS2, false, val, NULL);
> +				dev_dbg(dev->dev, "update STT_SKINTEMP_HS2 : %d\n", val);
> +				dev->prev_data->stt_skintemp_hs2 = val;
> +			}
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +


-- 
 i.