Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mailbox: sophgo: add mailbox driver for cv18x SoCs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




 From: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@xxxxxxxxxx>
 Sent: Friday, July 19, 2024 09:35
 To: Yuntao Dai <d1581209858@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx <krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; unicorn_wang@xxxxxxxxxxx <unicorn_wang@xxxxxxxxxxx>; inochiama@xxxxxxxxxxx <inochiama@xxxxxxxxxxx>; paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>; palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>; aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mailbox: sophgo: add mailbox driver for cv18x SoCs

 On 2024-07-14 11:36 AM, Yuntao Dai wrote:
> Add mailbox controller driver for cv18x SoCs, tested on mailbox-test
 > client.
 >
 > Signed-off-by: Yuntao Dai <d1581209858@xxxxxxxx>
 > ---
 >  drivers/mailbox/Kconfig          |  11 ++
 >  drivers/mailbox/Makefile         |   2 +
> drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c | 203 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 >  3 files changed, 216 insertions(+)
 >  create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
 >
 > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
 > index 3b8842c4a..db856ec7e 100644
 > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
 > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
 > @@ -286,4 +286,15 @@ config QCOM_IPCC
> acts as an interrupt controller for receiving interrupts from clients.
 >          Say Y here if you want to build this driver.
 >
 > +config CV1800_MBOX
 > +     tristate "cv1800 mailbox"
 > +     depends on OF

This dependency is not necessary once the probe function is fixed (see below).


I will fix it.

 > +     depends on ARCH_SOPHGO || COMPILE_TEST
 > +     help
> + Mailbox driver implementation for Sophgo cv180x SoCs. This driver > + can be used to send message between different processors in SoC. Any > + processer can write data in a channel, and set co-responding register > + to raise interrupt to notice another processor, and it is allowed to
 > +       send data to itself.
 > +
 >  endif
 > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
 > index 5cf2f54de..2c6db8c5c 100644
 > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
 > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
 > @@ -62,3 +62,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SUN6I_MSGBOX)  += sun6i-msgbox.o
 >  obj-$(CONFIG_SPRD_MBOX)              += sprd-mailbox.o
 >
 >  obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IPCC)              += qcom-ipcc.o
 > +
 > +obj-$(CONFIG_CV1800_MBOX)    += cv1800-mailbox.o
 > \ No newline at end of file

 Please add the missing newline.



I will fix it

> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
 > new file mode 100644
 > index 000000000..a3b214b4d
 > --- /dev/null
 > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/cv1800-mailbox.c
 > @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
 > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
 > +
 > +#include <linux/device.h>
 > +#include <linux/err.h>
 > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
 > +#include <linux/io.h>
 > +#include <linux/kfifo.h>
 > +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
 > +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
 > +#include <linux/module.h>
 > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
 > +#include <linux/slab.h>
 > +
 > +#define RECV_CPU 2
 > +
 > +#define MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN 0x0008
 > +#define MAILBOX_DONE_OFFSET 0x0002
 > +#define MAILBOX_CONTEXT_SIZE 0x0040
 > +#define MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET 0x0400
 > +
 > +#define MBOX_EN_REG(cpu) (cpu << 2)
 > +#define MBOX_DONE_REG(cpu) ((cpu << 2) + MAILBOX_DONE_OFFSET)
 > +
 > +#define MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(cpu) (0x10 + (cpu << 4))
 > +#define MBOX_SET_INT_REG(cpu) (0x18 + (cpu << 4))
 > +
 > +#define MBOX_SET_REG 0x60
 > +
 > +/**
 > + * cv1800 mailbox channel private data
 > + * @idx: index of channel
 > + * @cpu: send to which processor
 > + */
 > +struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv {
 > +     int idx;
 > +     int cpu;
 > +};
 > +
 > +struct cv1800_mbox {
 > +     struct mbox_controller mbox;
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv priv[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
 > +     struct mbox_chan chans[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
 > +     u64 __iomem *content[MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN];
 > +     void __iomem *mbox_base;
 > +     int recvid;
 > +};
 > +
 > +static irqreturn_t cv1800_mbox_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
 > +{
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = (struct cv1800_mbox *)dev_id;
 > +     size_t i;
 > +
 > +     for (i = 0; i < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; i++) {
 > +             if (mbox->content[i] && mbox->chans[i].cl) {
 > +                     mbox_chan_received_data(&mbox->chans[i],
 > +                                             mbox->content[i]);
 > +                     mbox->content[i] = NULL;
 > +                     return IRQ_HANDLED;

Are you sure you only want to handle one channel per interrupt? Should this be "ret = IRQ_HANDLED;" or similar instead of early return? The same applies to
 cv1800_mbox_irq().



I believe this approach can simplify the implementation. I utilize IRQ_ONESHOT to prevent interrupt racing, thereby avoiding the need for locking mbox->content in
this scenario. And I see rockchip mailbox did the same thing.


 > +             }
 > +     }
 > +     return IRQ_NONE;
 > +}
 > +
 > +static irqreturn_t cv1800_mbox_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
 > +{
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = (struct cv1800_mbox *)dev_id;
 > +     u64 __iomem *addr;
 > +     u8 set, valid;
 > +     size_t i;
 > +
 > +     set = readb(mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_INT_REG(RECV_CPU));
 > +
 > +     if (!set)
 > +             return IRQ_NONE;
 > +
 > +     for (i = 0; i < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; i++) {
 > +             valid = set & (1 << i);
> + addr = (u64 *)(mbox->mbox_base + MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET) + i;
 > +             if (valid) {
 > +                     mbox->content[i] = addr;
 > +                     writeb(valid,
> + mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(RECV_CPU)); > + writeb(~valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_EN_REG(RECV_CPU));
 > +                     return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
 > +             }
 > +     }
 > +
 > +     return IRQ_NONE;
 > +}
 > +
> +static int cv1800_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
 > +{
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *priv =
 > +             (struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *)chan->con_priv;
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox *mbox = dev_get_drvdata(chan->mbox->dev);
 > +     u64 __iomem *addr;
 > +     u8 en, valid;
 > +
 > +     int idx = priv->idx;
 > +     int cpu = priv->cpu;
 > +
> + addr = (u64 *)(mbox->mbox_base + MAILBOX_CONTEXT_OFFSET) + idx;
 > +     memcpy_toio(addr, data, 8);
 > +
 > +     valid = 1 << idx;
 > +     writeb(valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_CLR_REG(cpu));
 > +     en = readb(mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_EN_REG(cpu));
 > +     writeb(en | valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_EN_REG(cpu));
 > +     writeb(valid, mbox->mbox_base + MBOX_SET_REG);
 > +
 > +     return 0;
 > +}
 > +
 > +static bool cv1800_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan)
 > +{
 > +     return true;

Shouldn't this check MBOX_EN_REG(priv->cpu) or similar to check that the
 receiver has read the message?


Yes, I think check MBOX_EN_REG(priv->cpu) is a good way to ensure content
has been writen into hardware. And I think driver should only send the
message and upper layer is responsible for ack and things like that.

There is a vendor implementation of linux mailbox and RTOS mailbox:
https://github.com/milkv-duo/duo-buildroot-sdk/blob/develop/linux_5.10/drivers/soc/cvitek/rtos_cmdqu/rtos_cmdqu.c
https://github.com/milkv-duo/duo-buildroot-sdk/blob/develop/freertos/cvitek/task/comm/src/riscv64/comm_main.c

These implementations define a protocol structure for communication between linux and RTOS, the linux mailbox controller just need to provide API for
client and do not consider the content of msg.


 > +}
 > +
 > +static const struct mbox_chan_ops cv1800_mbox_chan_ops = {
 > +     .send_data = cv1800_mbox_send_data,
 > +     .last_tx_done = cv1800_last_tx_done,
 > +};
 > +
> +static struct mbox_chan *cv1800_mbox_xlate(struct mbox_controller *mbox, > + const struct of_phandle_args *spec)
 > +{
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox_chan_priv *priv;
 > +
 > +     int idx = spec->args[0];
 > +     int cpu = spec->args[1];
 > +
 > +     if (idx >= mbox->num_chans)
 > +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
 > +
 > +     priv = mbox->chans[idx].con_priv;
 > +     priv->cpu = cpu;
 > +
 > +     return &mbox->chans[idx];
 > +}
 > +
 > +static const struct of_device_id cv1800_mbox_of_match[] = {
 > +     { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800-mailbox", },
 > +     {},
 > +};
 > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, cv1800_mbox_of_match);
 > +
 > +static int cv1800_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 > +{
 > +     struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
 > +     struct cv1800_mbox *mb;
 > +     int irq, idx, err;
 > +
 > +     if (!dev->of_node)
 > +             return -ENODEV;

 No need for this check.

I will fix it


 > +
 > +     mb = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mb), GFP_KERNEL);
 > +     if (!mb)
 > +             return -ENOMEM;
 > +
 > +     mb->mbox_base = devm_of_iomap(dev, dev->of_node, 0, NULL);

Please use devm_platform_ioremap_resource() here, which abstracts away the OF node.

I will fix it


 > +     if (IS_ERR(mb->mbox_base))
 > +             return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(mb->mbox_base),
 > +                                  "Failed to map resource\n");
 > +
 > +     mb->mbox.dev = dev;
 > +     mb->mbox.chans = mb->chans;
 > +     mb->mbox.txdone_poll = true;
 > +     mb->mbox.ops = &cv1800_mbox_chan_ops;
 > +     mb->mbox.num_chans = MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN;
 > +     mb->mbox.of_xlate = cv1800_mbox_xlate;
 > +
 > +     irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "mailbox");
 > +     err = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, irq, cv1800_mbox_irq,
> + cv1800_mbox_isr, IRQF_ONESHOT,
 > +                                     dev_name(&pdev->dev), mb);
 > +     if (err < 0)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, err, "Failed to register irq\n");
 > +
 > +     for (idx = 0; idx < MAILBOX_MAX_CHAN; idx++) {
 > +             mb->priv[idx].idx = idx;
 > +             mb->mbox.chans[idx].con_priv = &mb->priv[idx];
 > +     }
 > +
 > +     err = devm_mbox_controller_register(dev, &mb->mbox);
 > +     if (err)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, err, "Failed to register mailbox\n");
 > +
 > +     platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mb);

 cv1800_mbox_send_data() could be called even inside
 devm_mbox_controller_register(), so this needs to be moved up.

I will fix it


 > +     return 0;
 > +}
 > +
 > +static struct platform_driver cv1800_mbox_driver = {
 > +     .driver = {
 > +             .name = "cv1800-mbox",
 > +             .of_match_table = cv1800_mbox_of_match,
 > +     },
 > +     .probe  = cv1800_mbox_probe,
 > +};
 > +
 > +module_platform_driver(cv1800_mbox_driver);
 > +
 > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("cv1800 mailbox driver");
 > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");






[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux