Hi Andre,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
As far as I can see, this driver also supports transmission via hvc.
However, almost everywhere here only smc instruction is mentioned.
Is it okay from your point of view?
> is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
> returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
> a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 8 ++
> drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> index c5731e5..5664b7f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> @@ -170,4 +170,12 @@ config BCM_FLEXRM_MBOX
> Mailbox implementation of the Broadcom FlexRM ring manager,
> which provides access to various offload engines on Broadcom
> SoCs. Say Y here if you want to use the Broadcom FlexRM.
> +
> +config ARM_SMC_MBOX
> + tristate "Generic ARM smc mailbox"
> + depends on OF && HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> + help
> + Generic mailbox driver which uses ARM smc calls to call into
> + firmware for triggering mailboxes.
> +
> endif
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> index d54e412..8ec6869 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> @@ -35,3 +35,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_BCM_FLEXRM_MBOX) += bcm-flexrm-mailbox.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_APCS_IPC) += qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_HSP_MBOX) += tegra-hsp.o
> +
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX) += arm-smc-mailbox.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d7b61a7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd.
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + *
> + * This device provides a mechanism for emulating a mailbox by using
> + * smc calls, allowing a "mailbox" consumer to sit in firmware running
> + * on the same core.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> +
> +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC BIT(0)
> +
> +struct arm_smc_chan_data {
> + u32 function_id;
> + u32 flags;
> +};
> +
> +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data)
> +{
> + struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
> + u32 function_id = chan_data->function_id;
> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
> + u32 msg = *(u32 *)data;
> +
> + if (chan_data->flags & ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC)
> + arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, msg, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> + else
> + arm_smccc_smc(function_id, msg, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +
> + mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)res.a0);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* This mailbox is synchronous, so we are always done. */
> +static bool arm_smc_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *link)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mbox_chan_ops arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops = {
> + .send_data = arm_smc_send_data,
> + .last_tx_done = arm_smc_last_tx_done
> +};
How the usage of timer-based polling tx_done method is justified (since it
always returns 'true')?
At the first glance, will it be more efficient to use TXDONE_BY_ACK here?
For instance, a controller will say:
mbox->txdone_poll = false;
mbox->txdone_irq = false;
and a client will say:
cl->tx_block = true;
cl->knows_txdone = true,
and the client will tick tx machinery with its mbox_client_txdone() immediately
after sending of message (since 'This mailbox is synchronous'). Otherwise,
why framework and client should wait >=1 ms before sending next message?
> +static int arm_smc_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> + struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> + struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data;
> + const char *method;
> + bool use_hvc = false;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(dev->of_node, "arm,func-ids",
> + sizeof(u32));
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (!of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "method", &method)) {
> + if (!strcmp("hvc", method)) {
> + use_hvc = true;
> + } else if (!strcmp("smc", method)) {
> + use_hvc = false;
> + } else {
> + dev_warn(dev, "invalid \"method\" property: %s\n",
> + method);
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!mbox)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + mbox->num_chans = ret;
> + mbox->chans = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*mbox->chans),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!mbox->chans)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + chan_data = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*chan_data),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!chan_data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) {
> + u32 function_id;
> +
> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(dev->of_node,
> + "arm,func-ids", i,
> + &function_id);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + chan_data[i].function_id = function_id;
> + if (use_hvc)
> + chan_data[i].flags |= ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC;
> + mbox->chans[i].con_priv = &chan_data[i];
> + }
> +
> + mbox->txdone_poll = true;
> + mbox->txdone_irq = false;
> + mbox->txpoll_period = 1;
> + mbox->ops = &arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops;
> + mbox->dev = dev;
> +
> + ret = mbox_controller_register(mbox);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mbox);
> + dev_info(dev, "ARM SMC mailbox enabled with %d chan%s.\n",
> + mbox->num_chans, mbox->num_chans == 1 ? "" : "s");
Out of curiosity, did you try to use more than one channel with this driver?
[..]
Best regards,
Alexey
--
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
