On 1/7/2022 5:31 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Wed 05 Jan 23:57 PST 2022, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
On 12/18/2021 1:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 10 Aug 12:54 CDT 2021, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
The DCC is a DMA Engine designed to capture and store data
during system crash or software triggers.The DCC operates
Please include a space after '.'
Ack
based on user inputs via the sysfs interface.The user gives
addresses as inputs and these addresses are stored in the
form of linkedlists.In case of a system crash or a manual
I think the user configures the DCC hardware with "a sequence of
operations to be performed as DCC is triggered".
Afaict the sequence is stored just as a sequence of operations in SRAM,
there's no linked list involved - except in your intermediate
implementation.
The user just enters the addresses as input whereas the sequence of
operations takes
place as per configuration code inside the driver. The end result is storage
of these
addresses inside the DCC SRAM. The DCC hardware will capture the value at
these
addresses on a crash or manual trigger by the user.
software trigger by the user through the sysfs interface,
the dcc captures and stores the values at these addresses.
This patch contains the driver which has all the methods
pertaining to the sysfs interface, auxiliary functions to
support all the four fundamental operations of dcc namely
read, write, first read then write and loop.The probe method
"first read then write" is called "read/modify/write"
Ack
here instantiates all the resources necessary for dcc to
operate mainly the dedicated dcc sram where it stores the
values.The DCC driver can be used for debugging purposes
without going for a reboot since it can perform manual
triggers.
Also added the documentation for sysfs entries
and explained the functionalities of each sysfs file that
has been created for dcc.
The following is the justification of using sysfs interface
over the other alternatives like ioctls
i) As can be seen from the sysfs attribute descriptions,
most of it does basic hardware manipulations like dcc_enable,
dcc_disable, config reset etc. As a result sysfs is preferred
over ioctl as we just need to enter a 0 or 1.
As I mentioned in our chat, using sysfs allows us to operate the
interface using the shell without additional tools.
But I don't think that it's easy to implement enable/disable/reset using
sysfs is a strong argument. The difficult part of this ABI is the
operations to manipulate the sequence of operations, so that's what you
need to have a solid plan for.
The sysfs interface is being used to get the addresses values entered by the
user
and to also go for manual triggers. The sequence of operations are kept as a
part of
fixed driver code which is called when the user enters the data.
But does the hardware really just operate on "addresses values entered
by the user". Given the various types of operations: read, write,
read-modify-write and loop I get the feeling that the hardware
"executes" a series of actions.
I'm don't think the proposed sysfs interface best exposes this to the
user and I don't think that "it's easy to implement enable/disable
attributes in sysfs" is reason enough to go with that approach.
So the sysfs interface here has been introduced keeping in mind how the
DCC_SRAM needs to be
programmed for the dcc hardware to work. We are maintaining a list here
based on the address
entry. The 4 cases for the type of addresses are as follows-:
i) READ ADDRESSES
user enters something like "echo <addr> <len> > config"
DCC driver stores the <addr> along with the length information in the
DCC_SRAM.
ii) WRITE ADDRESSES
User enters something like "echo <addr> <write_val> 1 > config_write"
DCC stores the <addr> first in sram followed by <write_val>.
For the above 2 type of addresses there won't be much difference if we
use IOCTL.
However, for the next 2 type of addresses
iii) LOOP ADDRESSES
user has to enter something like below
echo 9 > loop
echo 0x01741010 1 > config
echo 0x01741014 1 > config
echo 1 > loop
The DCC SRAM will be programmed precisely like the above entries where
the loop count will be stored first
followed by loop addresses and then again a "echo 1 > loop " marks the
end of loop addresses.
in DCC_SRAM.
iv) READ_WRITE ADDRESSES
User has to enter something like below
echo <addr> > /sys/bus/platform/devices/../config
echo <mask> <val> > /sys/bus/platform/devices/../rd_mod_wr
Here first the <addr> is stored in DCC_SRAM followed by <mask> and then
the <val>.
The above representation to the user space is consistent with the dcc
hardware in terms of
the way the sequence of values are programmed in the DCC SRAM . Moving
to IOCTL will
only change the way the READ_WRITE address is represented although user
will have to enter
multiple parameters at once, let me know if we still need to go for the
same.
ii) Existing similar debug hardwares are there for which drivers
have been written using sysfs interface.One such example is the
coresight-etm-trace driver.
Afaict the etm interface has operations to enable and disable, I don't
see anything that's similar to the interface for defining the sequence
of operations.
Here I have just drawn analogy with an existing sysfs interface. The
argument for
using sysfs instead of other interfaces can be as folllows
1)
Debugfs interface is used by drivers to expose debugging information additional to
the function they do. But the sole usage of this driver depends on the configuration
exported through the attributes and therefore it is an ABI as suggested by Mani.
2)
Debugfs is disabled in production so this will not give the user facility to use DCC.
3)
As you mentioned sysfs can be used with the shell without any additional tools.
4)
Alternatives like NETLINK has also been suggested although in this case by using
NETLINK we won't be able to exploit most it's features like duplex connection,
asychrony and bulk data transfers. We are not showing any stats here to the user
as such and also sysfs is considered to be a bit more reliable.
I'm not sure why netlink would preferred for this; to me sysfs is much
preferred as it allows us to use DCC from scripts etc without having to
bundle additional binaries. If we can't express the configuration
appropriately in a sysfs (debugfs would be the same) interface, I think
an ioctl interface on /dev/dcc would be a reasonable alternative.
Please let me your thoughts regarding this.
A closer analog can also be the watchdog
subsystems though it is ioctls based.
I don't think this adds value to the argument for using a sysfs based
interface.
Ack
Signed-off-by: Souradeep Chowdhury<schowdhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-dcc | 114 ++
drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig | 8 +
drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/soc/qcom/dcc.c | 1549 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 1672 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-dcc
create mode 100644 drivers/soc/qcom/dcc.c
diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-dcc b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-dcc
[..]
+What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../rd_mod_wr
+Date: March 2021
+Contact: Souradeep Chowdhury<schowdhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+Description:
+ This file is used to read the value of the register
+ and then write the value given as an argument to the
+ register address in config.
It's not clear from this description how to use this operation. E.g. is
it appended to the same list of operations? When will this operation
happen?
Looking at the implementation I believe that "config", "config_write",
"loop" and "rd_mod_wr" all appends operations to the same list.
I think it would be much better to configure this with a single file
that can either be written to '>' or appended to '>>' and you would feed
it a sequence of the operations to be performed.
That said, I'm afraid that might no longer be a sysfs attribute.
Something like:
# echo 'r 0x80000010 0x10' > config
# echo 'w 0x80000000 0xff' >> config
# echo 'rmw 0x80000000 0xf 0xa' >> config
# echo 'l 0x80000010 10' >> config
and:
# cat config
r 0x80000010 0x10
w 0x80000000 0xff
rmw 0x80000000 0xf 0xa
l 0x80000010 10
(Or read/write/modify/loop as keywords...)
reset could be done by just: echo '' > config
This would make it quite similar to several of the files in the tracing
framework.
Currently this is being implemented as follows
Step 1
echo 0x80000000 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/../config
Step 2
echo 0xF 0xA > /sys/bus/platform/devices/../rd_mod_wr
So the particular address is tagged as rd_mod_wr type and therefore
while the value at the address 0x80000000 is captured, 0xA is also
written to it's last 4 bits. Will be updating this in the documentation
along with details for loop and config_write as well.
But can you help me confirm what is actually written in SRAM when you
run these two steps?
Explained as above.
+ The address argument should
+ be given of the form <mask> <value>.For debugging
+ purposes sometimes we need to first read from a register
+ and then set some values to the register.
+ Example:
+ echo 0x80000000 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../config
+ (Set the address in config file)
+ echo 0xF 0xA > /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../rd_mod_wr
+ (Provide the mask and the value to write)
+
+What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../ready
+Date: March 2021
+Contact: Souradeep Chowdhury<schowdhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+Description:
+ This file is used to check the status of the dcc
+ hardware if it's ready to take the inputs.
When will this read "false"?
This will give false if the DCC hardware is not in an operational state.
Will update accordingly.
+ Example:
+ cat /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../ready
+
+What: /sys/bus/platform/devices/.../curr_list
+Date: February 2021
+Contact: Souradeep Chowdhury<schowdhu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+Description:
+ This attribute is used to enter the linklist to be
I think it would be more appropriate to use the verb "select" here and
afaict it's a "list" as the "linked" part only relates to your
implementation).
But that said, I don't like this ABI. I think it would be cleaner if you
had specific attributes for each of the lists. That way it would be
clear that you have N lists and they can be configured and enabled
independently, and there's no possible race conditions.
So we do have attributes for independent lists in this case. The user is
given the option
to configure multiple lists at one go. For example I can do
echo 1 > curr_list
echo 0x18000010 1 > config
echo 0x18000024 1 > config
Then followed by
echo 2 > curr_list
echo 0x18010038 6 > config
echo 0x18020010 1 > config
We will get the output in terms of two separate list of registers values.
I understand that this will define two lists of operations and that we
will get 2 and 7 registers dumped, respectively. Perhaps unlikely, but
what happens if you try to do these two operations concurrently?
What I'm suggesting here is that if you have N contexts, you should have
N interfaces to modify each one independently - simply because that's
generally a very good thing.
Not sure if there will ever be a concurrency issue in this case. This is
just about programming the DCC SRAM
from the user entries sequentially. The curr_list number is nothing but
some register writes done in the dcc
so that the dcc_hardware knows the beginning and end of a particular
list and can dump the captured data
according. Even if an user chooses multiple curr_list entries, it will
be programmed sequentially in DCC_SRAM.
+ used while appending addresses.The range of values
+ for this can be from 0 to 3.This feature is given in
+ order to use certain linkedlist for certain debugging
+ purposes.
+ Example:
+ echo 0 > /sys/bus/platform/devices/10a2000.dcc/curr_list
+
[..]
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/dcc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/dcc.c
[..]
+static int dcc_valid_list(struct dcc_drvdata *drvdata, int curr_list)
+{
+ u32 lock_reg;
+
+ if (list_empty(&drvdata->cfg_head[curr_list]))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (drvdata->enable[curr_list]) {
+ dev_err(drvdata->dev, "List %d is already enabled\n",
+ curr_list);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ lock_reg = dcc_readl(drvdata, DCC_LL_LOCK(curr_list));
Under what circumstances would this differ from
drvdata->enable[curr_list}?
So locking the list is done on the register as soon as the user enters the
curr_list entry whereas
the list is marked as enabled only on successfully programming the SRAM
contents. So a list can
be locked and not marked enabled in certain cases. The first is used so that
the user doesn't
mistakenly enter the same curr_list twice whereas the later is used to mark
that the list has been
successfully configured.
So this will mark the list as "actively in use, but disabled"? Why is
this kept in the hardware? When is this not the same as the list of
operations for that list being non-empty?
So this is in accordance with the dcc hardware configuration
requirement. We have to lock the list first and
after that proceed with the subsequent writes . As per the driver code below
/* 1. Take ownership of the list */
dcc_writel(drvdata, BIT(0), DCC_LL_LOCK(list));
/* 2. Program linked-list in the SRAM */
ram_cfg_base = drvdata->ram_cfg;
ret = __dcc_ll_cfg(drvdata, list);
if (ret) {
dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_LOCK(list));
goto err;
}
/* 3. program DCC_RAM_CFG reg */
dcc_writel(drvdata, ram_cfg_base +
drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_LL_BASE(list));
dcc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->ram_start +
drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_FD_BASE(list));
dcc_writel(drvdata, 0xFFF, DCC_LL_TIMEOUT(list));
/* 4. Clears interrupt status register */
dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_INT_ENABLE(list));
dcc_writel(drvdata, (BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2)),
DCC_LL_INT_STATUS(list));
In case of any errors we again unlock the list before exiting.
+ if (lock_reg & 0x1) {
+ dev_err(drvdata->dev, "List %d is already locked\n",
+ curr_list);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ dev_err(drvdata->dev, "DCC list passed %d\n", curr_list);
This is noise, please drop it.
Ack
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static bool is_dcc_enabled(struct dcc_drvdata *drvdata)
+{
+ bool dcc_enable = false;
+ int list;
+
+ for (list = 0; list < DCC_MAX_LINK_LIST; list++) {
+ if (drvdata->enable[list]) {
return true;
+ dcc_enable = true;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
return false;
+ return dcc_enable;
+}
+
+static int dcc_enable(struct dcc_drvdata *drvdata)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ int list;
+ u32 ram_cfg_base;
+
+ mutex_lock(&drvdata->mutex);
+
+ if (!is_dcc_enabled(drvdata)) {
+ memset_io(drvdata->ram_base,
+ 0xDE, drvdata->ram_size);
No need to wrap this line, and please use lowercase hex digits.
Ack
+ }
+
+ for (list = 0; list < drvdata->nr_link_list; list++) {
+
Please drop the empty line.
Ack
+ if (dcc_valid_list(drvdata, list))
+ continue;
+
+ /* 1. Take ownership of the list */
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, BIT(0), DCC_LL_LOCK(list));
Can we have a define for BIT(0)? Is it really about ownership or just
that we "enable" it?
If ownership, who's the other contenders for the ownership?
This is done to mark that the user has already entered the curr_list and
therefore
cannot enter it again.
What does "entered" mean here? Do you mean that the list of operations
that the driver kept track of has been flushed out to SRAM and we're not
not allowed to modify it?
What does this actually mean? Why is this done in the hardware and not
simply with a bool in the driver?
That is correct. As explained above this is as per dcc hardware
configuration requirement.
+
+ /* 2. Program linked-list in the SRAM */
+ ram_cfg_base = drvdata->ram_cfg;
+ ret = __dcc_ll_cfg(drvdata, list);
+ if (ret) {
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_LOCK(list));
+ goto err;
+ }
+
+ /* 3. program DCC_RAM_CFG reg */
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, ram_cfg_base +
+ drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_LL_BASE(list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->ram_start +
+ drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_FD_BASE(list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0xFFF, DCC_LL_TIMEOUT(list));
+
+ /* 4. Clears interrupt status register */
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_INT_ENABLE(list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, (BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2)),
+ DCC_LL_INT_STATUS(list));
+
+ drvdata->enable[list] = true;
+
+ /* 5. Configure trigger */
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, BIT(9), DCC_LL_CFG(list));
+ }
+
+err:
+ mutex_unlock(&drvdata->mutex);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void dcc_disable(struct dcc_drvdata *drvdata)
+{
+ int curr_list;
+
+ mutex_lock(&drvdata->mutex);
+
+ for (curr_list = 0; curr_list < drvdata->nr_link_list; curr_list++) {
+ if (!drvdata->enable[curr_list])
+ continue;
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_CFG(curr_list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_BASE(curr_list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_FD_BASE(curr_list));
+ dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_LOCK(curr_list));
+ drvdata->enable[curr_list] = false;
+ }
+ memset_io(drvdata->ram_base, 0, drvdata->ram_size);
Is there any reason why DCC is filled with 0xde during initialization
but 0 when disabled?
Yes this poison value is required to distinguish between bus hang on
register accesses
and a zero value for the registers. In case of the former dcc returns zero
value on registers
which causes ambiguity.
That explains why you poison ram_base with 0xde during dcc_enable(). But
why do you overwrite it with 0s in dcc_disable()?
You should be able to either just leave it as it will be poisoned again
next time dcc_enable() is called, or if you want to ensure things are
cleared you should be able to poison it with the same poison - to
distinguish it from a bunch of read 0s?
Ack
Regards,
Bjorn
