Hi Suman,
Could you please let us know your thoughts or comments?
BR
Fabien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: lundi 5 août 2019 19:47
> To: Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Maxime Coquelin
> <mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx>; Alexandre TORGUE
> <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxx>; Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>; linux-
> remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-stm32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Benjamin GAIGNARD
> <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks
>
> On Mon 05 Aug 01:48 PDT 2019, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
>
> >
> > On 01/08/2019 9:14 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Wed 13 Mar 08:50 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
> > >
> > >> The current implementation does not allow two different devices to
> > >> use a common hwspinlock. This patch set proposes to have, as an
> > >> option, some hwspinlocks shared between several users.
> > >>
> > >> Below is an example that explain the need for this:
> > >> exti: interrupt-controller@5000d000 {
> > >> compatible = "st,stm32mp1-exti", "syscon";
> > >> interrupt-controller;
> > >> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
> > >> reg = <0x5000d000 0x400>;
> > >> hwlocks = <&hsem 1>;
> > >> };
> > >> The two drivers (stm32mp1-exti and syscon) refer to the same hwlock.
> > >> With the current hwspinlock implementation, only the first driver
> > >> succeeds in requesting (hwspin_lock_request_specific) the hwlock.
> > >> The second request fails.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The proposed approach does not modify the API, but extends the DT
> 'hwlocks'
> > >> property with a second optional parameter (the first one identifies
> > >> an
> > >> hwlock) that specifies whether an hwlock is requested for exclusive
> > >> usage (current behavior) or can be shared between several users.
> > >> Examples:
> > >> hwlocks = <&hsem 8>; Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive usage
> > >> hwlocks = <&hsem 8 0>; Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive (0) usage
> > >> hwlocks = <&hsem 8 1>; Ref to hwlock #8 for shared (1) usage
> > >>
> > >> As a constraint, the #hwlock-cells value must be 1 or 2.
> > >> In the current implementation, this can have theorically any value but:
> > >> - all of the exisiting drivers use the same value : 1.
> > >> - the framework supports only one value : 1 (see implementation of
> > >> of_hwspin_lock_simple_xlate())
> > >> Hence, it shall not be a problem to restrict this value to 1 or 2
> > >> since it won't break any driver.
> > >>
> > > Hi Fabien,
> > >
> > > Your series looks good, but it makes me wonder why the hardware
> > > locks should be an exclusive resource.
> > >
> > > How about just making all (specific) locks shared?
> >
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > Making all locks shared is a possible implementation (my first
> > implementation was going this way) but there are some drawbacks we
> > must be aware of:
> >
> > A/ This theoretically break the legacy behavior (the legacy works with
> > exclusive (UNUSED radix tag) usage). As a consequence, an existing
> > driver that is currently failing to request a lock (already claimed by
> > another
> > user) would now work fine. Not sure that there are such drivers, so
> > this point is probably not a real issue.
> >
>
> Right, it's possible that a previously misconfigured system now successfully
> probes more than one device that uses a particular spinlock. But such system
> would be suffering from issues related to e.g.
> probe ordering.
>
> So I think we should ignore this issue.
>
> > B/ This would introduce some inconsistency between the two 'request'
> > API which are hwspin_lock_request() and hwspin_lock_request_specific().
> > hwspin_lock_request() looks for an unused lock, so requests for an
> > exclusive usage. On the other side, request_specific() would request shared
> locks.
> > Worst the following sequence can transform an exclusive usage into a
> > shared
> >
>
> There is already an inconsistency in between these; as with above any system
> that uses both request() and request_specific() will be suffering from intermittent
> failures due to probe ordering.
>
> > one:
> > -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#0 (exclusive)
> > -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#1 (exclusive)
> > -hwspin_lock_request_specific(0) -> returns Id#0 and makes Id#0
> > shared Honestly I am not sure that this is a real issue, but it's
> > better to have it in mind before we take ay decision
>
> The case where I can see a
> problem with this would be if the two clients somehow would nest their locking
> regions.
>
> But generally I think this could consider this an improvement, because the
> request_specific() would now be able to acquire its hwlock, with some additional
> contention due to the multiple use.
>
> > I could not find any driver using the hwspin_lock_request() API, we
> > may decide to remove (or to make deprecated) this API, having
> > everything 'shared without any conditions'.
> >
>
> It would be nice to have an upstream user of this API.
>
> >
> > I can see three options:
> > 1- Keep my initial proposition
> > 2- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
> > hwspin_lock_request() using unused (so 'initially' exclusive) locks.
> > 3- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
> > remove/make deprecated hwspin_lock_request().
> >
> > Just let me know what is your preference.
> >
>
> I think we should start with #2 and would like input from e.g. Suman regarding #3.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > BR
> >
> > Fabien
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > >> Fabien Dessenne (6):
> > >> dt-bindings: hwlock: add support of shared locks
> > >> hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks
> > >> dt-bindings: hwlock: update STM32 #hwlock-cells value
> > >> ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwspinlock node for stm32mp157 SoC
> > >> ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwlock for irqchip on stm32mp157
> > >> ARM: dts: stm32: hwlocks for GPIO for stm32mp157
> > >>
> > >> .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/hwlock.txt | 27 +++++--
> > >> .../bindings/hwlock/st,stm32-hwspinlock.txt | 6 +-
> > >> Documentation/hwspinlock.txt | 10 ++-
> > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157-pinctrl.dtsi | 2 +
> > >> arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi | 10 +++
> > >> drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++-
> ----
> > >> drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h | 2 +
> > >> 7 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> 2.7.4
> > >>
