On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Jassi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2016 12:31 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static int ti_msgmgr_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct device *dev = chan->mbox->dev;
>>>>>>> + struct ti_msgmgr_inst *inst = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>>>> + const struct ti_msgmgr_desc *desc;
>>>>>>> + struct ti_queue_inst *qinst = chan->con_priv;
>>>>>>> + int msg_count, num_words, trail_bytes;
>>>>>>> + struct ti_msgmgr_message *message = data;
>>>>>>> + void __iomem *data_reg;
>>>>>>> + u32 *word_data;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!inst)) {
>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "no platform drv data??\n");
>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + desc = inst->desc;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (desc->max_message_size < message->len) {
>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Queue %s message length %d > max %d\n",
>>>>>>> + qinst->name, message->len, desc->max_message_size);
>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* Are we able to send this or not? */
>>>>>>> + msg_count = ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages(qinst);
>>>>>>> + if (msg_count >= desc->max_messages) {
>>>>>>> + dev_warn(dev, "Queue %s is full (%d messages)\n", qinst->name,
>>>>>>> + msg_count);
>>>>>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> This seems fishy. mailbox api always submit 1 'complete' message to be
>>>>>> sent and checks for completion by last_tx_done() before calling
>>>>>> send_data() again. Controller drivers are not supposed to queue
>>>>>> messages - mailbox core does. So you should never be unable to send a
>>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK-> to explain this, few reasons: (queue messages check and usage of
>>>>> last_tx_done are kind of intertwined answer..
>>>>> a) we need to remember that the message manager has a shared RAM.
>>>>> multiple transmitter over other queues can be sharing the same.
>>>>> unfortunately, we dont get a threshold kind of interrupt or status that
>>>>> I am able to exploit in the current incarnation of the solution. The
>>>>> best we can do in the full system is to constrain the number of messages
>>>>> that are max pending simultaneously in each of the queue from various
>>>>> transmitters in the SoC.
>>>>> b) last_tx_done() is checked if TXDONE_BY_POLL, not if TXDONE_BY_ACK
>>>>> right? which is how this'd work since txdone_poll is false -> that is
>>>>> how we want this mechanism to work once the far end is ready for next
>>>>> message, it acks. I do see your point about being tied to protocol - I
>>>>> dont like it either.. in fact, I'd prefer that client registration
>>>>> mention what kind of handshaking is necessary, but: a) that is not how
>>>>> mailbox framework is constructed at the moment(we state txdone_poll at
>>>>> mailbox registration, not at client usage) and b) I have no real need
>>>>> for multiple clients to users of message manager who actually need
>>>>> non-ACK usage - even for the foreseeable future (at least 1 next
>>>>> generation of SoC) - if such a need does arise in the future, I will
>>>>> have to rework framework and make this capability at the registration
>>>>> time of the client - allowing each client path to use different
>>>>> mechanisms on hardware such as these that need it.
>>>>> c) message manager can actually queue more than one message(depending on
>>>>> client capability). Even though, at this point, we are not really
>>>>> capable of doing it(again from what I can see for immediate future),
>>>>> mailbox framework by checking last_tx_done forces a single message
>>>>> sequencing - which is not really exploiting the capability of the
>>>>> hardware - in theory, we should be able to queue max num messages, hit
>>>>> cpuidle and snooze away while the remote entity chomp away data at it's
>>>>> own pace and finally give us a notification back - but again, we can
>>>>> argue it is indeed protocol dependent, so setting txdone_poll to false
>>>>> actually enables that to be done in user. Again - i have no immediate
>>>>> need for any queued multiple transfer needs yet.. even if i need to, in
>>>>> the future, it can easily be done by the client by maintaining code as
>>>>> is - txdone_poll is false.
>>>>>
>>>> All I suggest is that the controller does not queue more than 1
>>>> message at a time, which means the controller driver allows for
>>>> maximum possible resources taken by a message.
>>>> The buffering is already done by the core, and if for your 'batch
>>>> dispatch' thing the client could simply flush them to remote by
>>>> pretending it got the ack (which is no worse than simply sending all
>>>> messages to remote without caring if the first was successful or not).
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting to set txdone_poll is true?
>> No.
>>
>>> the controller is quite
>>> capable of queueing more than 1 message at a time. This the reason for
>>> letting the client choose the mode of operation - use ack mechanism for
>>> operation. client can choose to ignore the buffering in the controller,
>>> as you mentioned, but then, why force txdone_poll to true and deny the
>>> usage of the queue capability of the hardware?
>>>
>> irq/poll/ack whatever you use, there is no valid reason to buffer
>> messages in the controller driver. Please let me know what usecase you
>> have in mind that must have messages buffered in controller driver and
>> not core.
>
> I am confused, I am _not_ buffering any tx data in the controller
> driver - rx data is stored in a temp buffer to send up the stack -
> that is just regular practise, right?
>
right.
> In tx, I just check to ensure
> that the queue has'nt run out prior to transmission since the hardware
> is capable of queueing - ok, in a single transmitter system it is
> probably a little overkill, but we would like to function in multiple
> producer SoC as well. What am I missing here?
>
In send_data() you have ...
+ /* Are we able to send this or not? */
+ msg_count = ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages(qinst);
+ if (msg_count >= desc->max_messages) {
+ dev_warn(dev, "Queue %s is full (%d messages)\n", qinst->name,
+ msg_count);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
That is, you check if there are some messages in the TX-Queue already.
I am not sure how you could hit this and if that is legit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
