Hi Andre, > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 09:32:42 -0700 > Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 6/3/19 1:30 AM, peng.fan@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted > > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox > > > receiver 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. > > > > > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flo > > > > re.kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&data=02%7C01% > 7Cpen > > > > g.fan%40nxp.com%7C15c4180b8fe5405d3de808d6ea81d5f1%7C686ea1d3bc > 2b4c6 > > > > fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636954240720601454&sdata=1Cp > WSgTH7lF > > > cBKxJnLeIDw%2FDAQJJO%2FVypV1LUU1BRQA%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > [snip] > > > > +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USB_IRQ BIT(1) > > > > That flag appears unused. > > > > > +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, irq_count, i; > > > + u32 val; > > > + > > > + if (!of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "arm,num-chans", &val)) { > > > + if (val < 1 || val > INT_MAX) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "invalid arm,num-chans value %u > of %pOFn\n", val, > > > +pdev->dev.of_node); > > Isn't the of_node parameter redundant, because dev_err() already takes care > of that? I'll remove that. > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + } > > > > Should not the upper bound check be done against UINT_MAX since val is > > an unsigned int? > > But wouldn't that be somewhat pointless, given that val is a u32? So I guess > we could just condense this down to: > ... > if (!val) { > ... make sense. > > > > + > > > + irq_count = platform_irq_count(pdev); > > > + if (irq_count == -EPROBE_DEFER) > > > + return irq_count; > > > + > > > + if (irq_count && irq_count != val) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "Interrupts not match num-chans\n"); > > > > Interrupts property does not match \"arm,num-chans\" would be more > correct. > > Given that interrupts are optional, do we have to rely on this? If there is interrupt property, the interrupts should match channel counts. Do we actually > need one interrupt per channel? I thought about this, provide one interrupt for all channels. But there is no good way to let interrupt handlers know which channel triggers the interrupt. So I use one interrupt per channel. > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + } > > > + > > > + 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; > > > + } > > > > Having at least one method specified does not seem to be checked later > > on in the code, so if I omitted to specify that property, we would > > still register the mailbox and default to use "smc" since the > > ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC flag would not be set, would not we want to > make > > sure that we do have in fact a valid method specified given the > > binding documents that property as mandatory? > > > > [snip] > > > > > + mbox->txdone_poll = false; > > > + mbox->txdone_irq = false; > > > + mbox->ops = &arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops; > > > + mbox->dev = dev; > > > + > > > + ret = mbox_controller_register(mbox); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mbox); > > > > I would move this above mbox_controller_register() that way there is > > no room for race conditions in case another part of the driver expects > > to have pdev->dev.drvdata set before the mbox controller is registered. > > Since you use devm_* functions for everything, you may even remove > > that call. > > > > [snip] > > > > > +#ifndef _LINUX_ARM_SMC_MAILBOX_H_ > > > +#define _LINUX_ARM_SMC_MAILBOX_H_ > > > + > > > +struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd { > > > + unsigned long a0, a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, a7; }; > > > > Do you expect this to be used by other in-kernel users? If so, it > > might be good to document how a0 can have a special meaning and be > > used as a substitute for the function_id? > > I don't think we should really expose this outside of the driver. From a mailbox > point of view this is just the payload, transported according to the SMCCC. > Also using "long" here sounds somewhat troublesome. > > Also, looking at the SMCCC, I only see six parameters in addition to the > function identifier. Shall we reflect this here? I could move it to driver code. Jassi, do you have any comments? Thanks, Peng. > > Cheers, > Andre.
