On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:21:09AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox > > > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 04:30:05PM +0800, 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%2Flore > > > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&data=02%7C01%7 > > Cpeng.fa > > > > > n%40nxp.com%7C6b37f78032e446be750e08d6f560e707%7C686ea1d3bc2b4 > > c6fa92cd > > > > > 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636966193913988679&sdata=UNM4MTPs > > brqoMqWStEy > > > YzzwMEWTmX7hHO3TeNEz%2BOAw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > V2: > > > Add interrupts notification support. > > > > > > drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 7 ++ > > > drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 + > > > drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 190 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > include/linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h | 10 ++ > > > 4 files changed, 209 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c create mode > > > 100644 include/linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig index > > > 595542bfae85..c3bd0f1ddcd8 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig > > > @@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ config ARM_MHU > > > The controller has 3 mailbox channels, the last of which can be > > > used in Secure mode only. > > > > > > +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. > > > + > > > config IMX_MBOX > > > tristate "i.MX Mailbox" > > > depends on ARCH_MXC || COMPILE_TEST > > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile index > > > c22fad6f696b..93918a84c91b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile > > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX_TEST) += mailbox-test.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MHU) += arm_mhu.o > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX) += arm-smc-mailbox.o > > > + > > > obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_MBOX) += imx-mailbox.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARMADA_37XX_RWTM_MBOX) += > > armada-37xx-rwtm-mailbox.o > > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c > > > b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..fef6e38d8b98 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c > > > @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > +/* > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd. > > > + * Copyright 2019 NXP > > > + */ > > > + > > > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h> > > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h> > > > +#include <linux/interrupt.h> > > > +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h> #include > > > +<linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h> > > > +#include <linux/module.h> > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> > > > + > > > +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC BIT(0) > > > +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USB_IRQ BIT(1) > > > + > > > +struct arm_smc_chan_data { > > > + u32 function_id; > > > + u32 flags; > > > + int irq; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data) { > > > + struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv; > > > + struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd *cmd = data; > > > + struct arm_smccc_res res; > > > + u32 function_id; > > > + > > > + if (chan_data->function_id != UINT_MAX) > > > + function_id = chan_data->function_id; > > > + else > > > + function_id = cmd->a0; > > > + > > > + if (chan_data->flags & ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC) > > > + arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, cmd->a1, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, > > cmd->a4, > > > + cmd->a5, cmd->a6, cmd->a7, &res); > > > + else > > > + arm_smccc_smc(function_id, cmd->a1, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, > > cmd->a4, > > > + cmd->a5, cmd->a6, cmd->a7, &res); > > > + > > > > So how will the SMC/HVC handler in EL3/2 find which mailbox is being > > referred with this command ? I prefer 2nd argument to be the mailbox > > number. > You mean channel number as following? > > @@ -37,10 +38,10 @@ static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data) > function_id = cmd->a0; > > if (chan_data->flags & ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC) > - arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, cmd->a1, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, cmd->a4, > + arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, chan_data->chan_id, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, cmd->a4, > cmd->a5, cmd->a6, cmd->a7, &res); > else > - arm_smccc_smc(function_id, cmd->a1, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, cmd->a4, > + arm_smccc_smc(function_id, chan_data->chan_id, cmd->a2, cmd->a3, cmd->a4, > cmd->a5, cmd->a6, cmd->a7, &res); > Yes something like above. There's a brief description of the same in latest SCMI specification though it's not related to SCMI, it more general note for SMC based mailbox. "In case the doorbell is SMC/HVC based, it should follow the SMC Calling Convention [SMCCC] and needs to provide the identifier of the Shared Memory area that contains the payload. On return from the call, the Shared Memory area which contained the payload is now updated with the SCMI return response. The identifier of the Shared Memory area should be 32-bits and each identifier should denote a distinct Shared Memory area." > Or should that be passed from firmware driver? > No, we can't assume the id's in DT are 1-1 translation to mailbox ID used though it may be the same most of the time. > If not from firmware driver, just as above, I do not have a good idea which > should be passed to smc, from cmd->a1 to a5 or from cmd->a2 to a6. > Also I found copying those registers may not be always needed and can be sub-optimal. May be a way to indicate that this in DT whether register based transfers are used or using memory. Just a thought. -- Regards, Sudeep
