On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:37:27PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On 07/06/2016 08:23 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Joseph Lo <josephl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On 07/06/2016 03:05 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joseph Lo <josephl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>The Tegra HSP mailbox driver implements the signaling doorbell-based
> >>>>interprocessor communication (IPC) for remote processors currently. The
> >>>>HSP HW modules support some different features for that, which are
> >>>>shared mailboxes, shared semaphores, arbitrated semaphores, and
> >>>>doorbells. And there are multiple HSP HW instances on the chip. So the
> >>>>driver is extendable to support more features for different IPC
> >>>>requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>>The driver of remote processor can use it as a mailbox client and deal
> >>>>with the IPC protocol to synchronize the data communications.
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>---
> >>>>Changes in V2:
> >>>>- Update the driver to support the binding changes in V2
> >>>>- it's extendable to support multiple HSP sub-modules on the same HSP HW
> >>>>block
> >>>> now.
> >>>>---
> >>>> drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 9 +
> >>>> drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
> >>>> drivers/mailbox/tegra-hsp.c | 418
> >>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 429 insertions(+)
> >>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/tegra-hsp.c
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> >>>>index 5305923752d2..fe584cb54720 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> >>>>@@ -114,6 +114,15 @@ config MAILBOX_TEST
> >>>> Test client to help with testing new Controller driver
> >>>> implementations.
> >>>>
> >>>>+config TEGRA_HSP_MBOX
> >>>>+ bool "Tegra HSP(Hardware Synchronization Primitives) Driver"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Space missing before the opening parenthesis (same in the patch title
> >>>btw).
> >>
> >>Okay.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>+ depends on ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC
> >>>>+ help
> >>>>+ The Tegra HSP driver is used for the interprocessor
> >>>>communication
> >>>>+ between different remote processors and host processors on
> >>>>Tegra186
> >>>>+ and later SoCs. Say Y here if you want to have this support.
> >>>>+ If unsure say N.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Since this option is selected automatically by ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC, you
> >>>should probably drop the last 2 sentences.
> >>
> >>Okay.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>+
> >>>> config XGENE_SLIMPRO_MBOX
> >>>> tristate "APM SoC X-Gene SLIMpro Mailbox Controller"
> >>>> depends on ARCH_XGENE
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> >>>>index 0be3e742bb7d..26d8f91c7fea 100644
> >>>>--- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> >>>>@@ -25,3 +25,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TI_MESSAGE_MANAGER) += ti-msgmgr.o
> >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_XGENE_SLIMPRO_MBOX) += mailbox-xgene-slimpro.o
> >>>>
> >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_HI6220_MBOX) += hi6220-mailbox.o
> >>>>+
> >>>>+obj-${CONFIG_TEGRA_HSP_MBOX} += tegra-hsp.o
> >>>>diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/tegra-hsp.c b/drivers/mailbox/tegra-hsp.c
> >>>>new file mode 100644
> >>>>index 000000000000..93c3ef58f29f
> >>>>--- /dev/null
> >>>>+++ b/drivers/mailbox/tegra-hsp.c
> >>>>@@ -0,0 +1,418 @@
> >>>>+/*
> >>>>+ * Copyright (c) 2016, NVIDIA CORPORATION. All rights reserved.
> >>>>+ *
> >>>>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>>>it
> >>>>+ * under the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License,
> >>>>+ * version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>+ *
> >>>>+ * This program is distributed in the hope it will be useful, but
> >>>>WITHOUT
> >>>>+ * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> >>>>+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
> >>>>for
> >>>>+ * more details.
> >>>>+ */
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/io.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/of.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/of_device.h>
> >>>>+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>>>+#include <dt-bindings/mailbox/tegra186-hsp.h>
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#define HSP_INT_DIMENSIONING 0x380
> >>>>+#define HSP_nSM_OFFSET 0
> >>>>+#define HSP_nSS_OFFSET 4
> >>>>+#define HSP_nAS_OFFSET 8
> >>>>+#define HSP_nDB_OFFSET 12
> >>>>+#define HSP_nSI_OFFSET 16
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Would be nice to have comments to understand what SM, SS, AS, etc.
> >>>stand for (Shared Mailboxes, Shared Semaphores, Arbitrated Semaphores
> >>>but you need to look at the patch description to understand that). A
> >>>top-of-file comment explaning the necessary concepts to read this code
> >>>would do the trick.
> >>
> >>Yes, will fix that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>+#define HSP_nINT_MASK 0xf
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_REG_TRIGGER 0x0
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE 0x4
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_REG_RAW 0x8
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_REG_PENDING 0xc
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_CCPLEX 1
> >>>>+#define HSP_DB_BPMP 3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Maybe turn this into enum and use that type for
> >>>tegra_hsp_db_chan::db_id? Also have MAX_NUM_HSP_DB here, since it is
> >>>related to these values?
> >>
> >>Okay.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#define MAX_NUM_HSP_CHAN 32
> >>>>+#define MAX_NUM_HSP_DB 7
> >>>>+
> >>>>+#define hsp_db_offset(i, d) \
> >>>>+ (d->base + ((1 + (d->nr_sm >> 1) + d->nr_ss + d->nr_as) << 16) +
> >>>>\
> >>>>+ (i) * 0x100)
> >>>>+
> >>>>+struct tegra_hsp_db_chan {
> >>>>+ int master_id;
> >>>>+ int db_id;
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan {
> >>>>+ int type;
> >>>>+ union {
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_db_chan db_chan;
> >>>>+ };
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+struct tegra_hsp_mbox {
> >>>>+ struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> >>>>+ void __iomem *base;
> >>>>+ void __iomem *db_base[MAX_NUM_HSP_DB];
> >>>>+ int db_irq;
> >>>>+ int nr_sm;
> >>>>+ int nr_as;
> >>>>+ int nr_ss;
> >>>>+ int nr_db;
> >>>>+ int nr_si;
> >>>>+ spinlock_t lock;
> >>>>+};
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static inline u32 hsp_readl(void __iomem *base, int reg)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ return readl(base + reg);
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static inline void hsp_writel(void __iomem *base, int reg, u32 val)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ writel(val, base + reg);
> >>>>+ readl(base + reg);
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static int hsp_db_can_ring(void __iomem *db_base)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ u32 reg;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ reg = hsp_readl(db_base, HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ return !!(reg & BIT(HSP_DB_MASTER_CCPLEX));
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static irqreturn_t hsp_db_irq(int irq, void *p)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox *hsp_mbox = p;
> >>>>+ ulong val;
> >>>>+ int master_id;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ val = (ulong)hsp_readl(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX],
> >>>>+ HSP_DB_REG_PENDING);
> >>>>+ hsp_writel(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX], HSP_DB_REG_PENDING,
> >>>>val);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ spin_lock(&hsp_mbox->lock);
> >>>>+ for_each_set_bit(master_id, &val, MAX_NUM_HSP_CHAN) {
> >>>>+ struct mbox_chan *chan;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan *mchan;
> >>>>+ int i;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUM_HSP_CHAN; i++) {
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I wonder if this could not be optimized. You are doing a double loop
> >>>on MAX_NUM_HSP_CHAN to look for an identical master_id. Since it seems
> >>>like the same master_id cannot be used twice (considering that the
> >>>inner loop only processes the first match), couldn't you just select
> >>>the free channel in of_hsp_mbox_xlate() by doing
> >>>&mbox->chans[master_id] (and returning an error if it is already
> >>>used), then simply getting chan as &hsp_mbox->mbox->chans[master_id]
> >>>instead of having the inner loop below? That would remove the need for
> >>>the second loop.
> >>
> >>
> >>That was exactly what I did in the V1, which only supported one HSP
> >>sub-module per HSP HW block. So we can just use the master_id as the mbox
> >>channel ID.
> >>
> >>Meanwhile, the V2 is purposed to support multiple HSP sub-modules to be
> >>running on the same HSP HW block. The "ID" between different modules could
> >>be conflict. So I dropped the mechanism that used the master_id as the mbox
> >>channel ID.
> >>
> >>Instead, the channel is allocated at the time, when the client is bound to
> >>one of the HSP sub-modules. And we store the "ID" information into the
> >>private mbox channel data, which can help us to figure out which mbox
> >>channel should response to the interrupt.
> >>
> >>In the doorbell case, because all the DB clients are shared the same DB IRQ
> >>at the CPU side. So in the ISR, we need to figure out the IRQ source, which
> >>is the master_id that the IRQ came from. This is the outer loop. The inner
> >>loop, we figure out which channel should response to by checking the type
> >>and ID.
> >>
> >>And I think it should be pretty quick, because we only check the set bit
> >>from the pending register. And finding the matching channel.
> >
> >Yeah, I am not worried about the CPU time (although in interrupt
> >context, we always should), but rather about whether the code could be
> >simplified.
> >
> >Ah, I think I get it. You want to be able to receive interrupts from
> >the same master, but not necessarily for the doorbell function.
> >Because of this you cannot use master_id as the index for the channel.
> >Am I understanding correctly?
>
> Yes, the DB clients trigger the IRQ through the same master
> (HSP_DB_CCPLEX) with it's master_id. We (CPU) can check the ID to
> know who is requesting the HSP mbox service. Each ID is unique under
> the DB module.
>
> But the ID could be conflict when the HSP mbox driver are working
> with multiple HSP sub-function under the same HSP HW block. So we
> can't just match the ID to the HSP mbox channel ID.
Joseph, can you think about any other sub-function that uses the same
master ids (& those that does not have their own irqs)? I wonder if we
are over-engineering this. I think the hsp_db_startup() and
hsp_db_shutdown() does not support sharing masters - _startup() by one
followed by _shutdown() from another will mask the interrupt. If there
is infact other potential sub-functions, I would imagine this will
translate to other values of the tegra_hsp_mbox_chan.type than
HSP_MBOX_TYPE_DB? If yes, then you should be able to remove need of this
inner loop by having per-sub-function mboxes or by combining 'type' and
'master_id' to make single index value?
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>If having two channels use the same master_id is a valid scenario,
> >>>then all matches on master_id should probably be processed, not just
> >>>the first one.
> >>
> >>Each DB channel should have different master_id.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>+ chan = &hsp_mbox->mbox->chans[i];
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (!chan->con_priv)
> >>>>+ continue;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ mchan = chan->con_priv;
> >>>>+ if (mchan->type == HSP_MBOX_TYPE_DB &&
> >>>>+ mchan->db_chan.master_id == master_id)
> >>>>+ break;
> >>>>+ chan = NULL;
> >>>>+ }
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (chan)
> >>>>+ mbox_chan_received_data(chan, NULL);
> >>>>+ }
> >>>>+ spin_unlock(&hsp_mbox->lock);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static int hsp_db_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan *mchan = chan->con_priv;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_db_chan *db_chan = &mchan->db_chan;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox *hsp_mbox =
> >>>>dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ hsp_writel(hsp_mbox->db_base[db_chan->db_id], HSP_DB_REG_TRIGGER,
> >>>>1);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ return 0;
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static int hsp_db_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan *mchan = chan->con_priv;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_db_chan *db_chan = &mchan->db_chan;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox *hsp_mbox =
> >>>>dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
> >>>>+ u32 val;
> >>>>+ unsigned long flag;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (db_chan->master_id >= MAX_NUM_HSP_CHAN) {
> >>>>+ dev_err(chan->mbox->dev, "invalid HSP chan: master ID:
> >>>>%d\n",
> >>>>+ db_chan->master_id);
> >>>>+ return -EINVAL;
> >>>>+ }
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&hsp_mbox->lock, flag);
> >>>>+ val = hsp_readl(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX],
> >>>>HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE);
> >>>>+ val |= BIT(db_chan->master_id);
> >>>>+ hsp_writel(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX], HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE,
> >>>>val);
> >>>>+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hsp_mbox->lock, flag);
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (!hsp_db_can_ring(hsp_mbox->db_base[db_chan->db_id]))
> >>>>+ return -ENODEV;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ return 0;
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static void hsp_db_shutdown(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan *mchan = chan->con_priv;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_db_chan *db_chan = &mchan->db_chan;
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox *hsp_mbox =
> >>>>dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
> >>>>+ u32 val;
> >>>>+ unsigned long flag;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ spin_lock_irqsave(&hsp_mbox->lock, flag);
> >>>>+ val = hsp_readl(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX],
> >>>>HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE);
> >>>>+ val &= ~BIT(db_chan->master_id);
> >>>>+ hsp_writel(hsp_mbox->db_base[HSP_DB_CCPLEX], HSP_DB_REG_ENABLE,
> >>>>val);
> >>>>+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hsp_mbox->lock, flag);
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static bool hsp_db_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ return true;
> >>>>+}
> >>>>+
> >>>>+static int tegra_hsp_db_init(struct tegra_hsp_mbox *hsp_mbox,
> >>>>+ struct mbox_chan *mchan, int master_id)
> >>>>+{
> >>>>+ struct platform_device *pdev =
> >>>>to_platform_device(hsp_mbox->mbox->dev);
> >>>>+ struct tegra_hsp_mbox_chan *hsp_mbox_chan;
> >>>>+ int ret;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ if (!hsp_mbox->db_irq) {
> >>>>+ int i;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ hsp_mbox->db_irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev,
> >>>>"doorbell");
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Getting the IRQ sounds more like a job for probe() - I don't see the
> >>>benefit of lazy-doing it?
> >>
> >>
> >>We only need the IRQ when the client is requesting the DB service. For other
> >>HSP sub-modules, they are using different IRQ. So I didn't do that at probe
> >>time.
> >
> >Ok, but probe() is where resources should be acquired... and at the
> >very least DT properties be looked up. In this case there is no hard
> >requirement for doing it elsewhere.
> >
> >Is this interrupt absolutely required? Or can we tolerate to not use
> >the doorbell service? In the first case, the driver should fail during
> >probe(), not sometime later. In the second case, you should still get
> >all the interrupts in probe(), then disable them if they are not
> >needed, and check in this function whether db_irq is a valid interrupt
> >number to decide whether or not we can use doorbell.
>
> Ah, I understand your concern now. It should be ok to move to
> probe(). Will fix that.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>+ ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, hsp_mbox->db_irq,
> >>>>+ hsp_db_irq, IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
> >>>>+ dev_name(&pdev->dev), hsp_mbox);
> >>>>+ if (ret)
> >>>>+ return ret;
> >>>>+
> >>>>+ for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUM_HSP_DB; i++)
> >>>>+ hsp_mbox->db_base[i] = hsp_db_offset(i,
> >>>>hsp_mbox);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Same here, cannot this be moved into probe()?
> >>
> >>Same as above, only needed when the client requests it.
> >
> >But you don't waste any resources by doing it preemptively in probe().
> >So let's keep related code in the same place.
>
> Okay.
>
> Thanks,
> -Joseph
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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
