On 8/2/2023 11:47 PM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
On 7/24/2023 1:42 AM, Qiang Yu wrote:On 7/21/2023 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:Hi Jeff, sorry, previous reply contains HTML content, not sure if you have got my reply. So reply again.On 7/20/2023 8:39 PM, Qiang Yu wrote:Add tme supported image related flag which makes decision in terms of how FBC image based AMSS image is being downloaded with connected endpoint.FBC image is having 2 image combine: SBL image + AMSS image. 1. FBC image download using legacy image format: - SBL image: 512KB of FBC image is downloaded using BHI. - AMSS image: full FBC image is downloaded using BHIe. 2. FBC image download using TME supported image format: - SBL image: 512 KB of FBC image is downloaded using BHI. - AMSS image: 512 KB onward FBC image is downloaded using BHIe. There is no change for SBL image download. Although AMSS image startaddress is end address of SBL image while using TME supported image format.I know what TME is, but in the context of this patch, it doesn't seem like relevant information. "tme" is just a name for this mode, but it is not very descriptive. Also, I suspect that this mode is not intrinsically related to the TME hardware on the endpoint, it just happens to be used on targets where TME is present.Is there something else we can call this?How about below commit message? Currently, the FBC image is non-standard ELF file which contains one ELF header followed by segments for SBL/RDDM and AMSS. To support TME-L,we need to have separate ELF header for SBL/RDDM and AMSS due to limitation of TME-L.I don't think mentioning TME-L has any value. The host doesn't interact with TME-L nor has any way to directly detect if TME-L is present.I would suggest making this more generic - some devices (for example XXX) are unable to handle the non-standard ELF format of the FBC image and thus need special handling of the FBC image.
This is really better and more generic.
With combine FBC image, we are able to accommodate new image request better way with less code change, and satisfy processing of RDDM without any modification.Add standard_elf_image flag which makes decision in terms of how FBC image basedAMSS image is being downloaded with connected endpoint. FBC image is having two image combine: SBL image + AMSS image. 1. FBC image download using legacy single ELF header image format: - SBL image: 512KB of FBC image is downloaded using BHI. - AMSS image: full FBC image is downloaded using BHIe. 2. FBC image download using separate ELF header image format: - SBL image: 512 KB of FBC image is downloaded using BHI. - AMSS image: 512 KB onward FBC image is downloaded using BHIe. There is no change for SBL image download. Although AMSS image startaddress is end address of SBL image while using separate ELF header format.I wonder if it makes more sense to split the FBC image into two images for these devices. One SBL image, and one AMSS image. Feels like we would just need to detect if there is a separate AMSS image, and use that for BHIe. Then we don't need to go manipulating the image (which I feel might be fragile).
Thank you for pointing it out. Will change to "From: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@xxxxxxxxxxx>" .Mani, do you have thoughts on this?Thank you for your time and patience.Signed-off-by: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@xxxxxxxxxxx>This doesn't make sense. This patch is from you, which makes you the author. But Mayank's SOB is listed first, which means he is the author. Those two facts conflict.Did Mayank author this and you are just submitting it on his behalf, or did the two of you co-author this?In downstream, Mayank made this change and I modified it for upstream. Will it be accepted if I write the SOBs as following? I see this examplehttps://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?h=v6.5-rc2&id=7450aa5153af55a0c63785a6917e35a989a4fdf5Signed-off-by: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@xxxxxxxxxxx> [quic_qianyu@xxxxxxxxxxx: Update commit message, minor updates] Signed-off-by: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@xxxxxxxxxxx>This would be good. However it doesn't fully address my concern.I hope you are using patch files and git send-email. Before you send the patch file, please open it in your favorite editor and look at the second line. It should start with "From:". Right now, I suspect it looks like:From: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@xxxxxxxxxxx> However, based on what you described, it should look like: From: Mayank Rana <quic_mrana@xxxxxxxxxxx>The From: line tells us who originally authored the change (lets ignore changes with multiple authors for this discussion) and must match the first SOB listed. Since Mayank authored the change and is the first SOB listed, the patch should be "from" him.
Can I add the flag under bool wake_set, and change the flag name to standard_elf_image?--- drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++------- include/linux/mhi.h | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c index d2a19b07..563b011 100644 --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c@@ -365,12 +365,13 @@ int mhi_alloc_bhie_table(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,} static void mhi_firmware_copy(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, - const struct firmware *firmware, + const u8 *image_buf, + size_t img_size, struct image_info *img_info) { - size_t remainder = firmware->size; + size_t remainder = img_size; size_t to_cpy; - const u8 *buf = firmware->data; + const u8 *buf = image_buf; struct mhi_buf *mhi_buf = img_info->mhi_buf; struct bhi_vec_entry *bhi_vec = img_info->bhi_vec;@@ -395,8 +396,9 @@ void mhi_fw_load_handler(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl)const char *fw_name; void *buf; dma_addr_t dma_addr; - size_t size; + size_t size, img_size; int i, ret; + const u8 *img_buf; if (MHI_PM_IN_ERROR_STATE(mhi_cntrl->pm_state)) { dev_err(dev, "Device MHI is not in valid state\n");@@ -478,15 +480,23 @@ void mhi_fw_load_handler(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl)* device transitioning into MHI READY state */ if (mhi_cntrl->fbc_download) { - ret = mhi_alloc_bhie_table(mhi_cntrl, &mhi_cntrl->fbc_image, - firmware->size); + img_size = firmware->size; + img_buf = firmware->data; + dev_dbg(dev, "tme_supported_image:%s\n", + (mhi_cntrl->tme_supported_image ? "True" : "False")); + if (mhi_cntrl->tme_supported_image) { + img_buf = firmware->data + mhi_cntrl->sbl_size; + img_size = img_size - mhi_cntrl->sbl_size; + } ++ ret = mhi_alloc_bhie_table(mhi_cntrl, &mhi_cntrl->fbc_image, img_size);if (ret) { release_firmware(firmware); goto error_fw_load; } /* Load the firmware into BHIE vec table */ - mhi_firmware_copy(mhi_cntrl, firmware, mhi_cntrl->fbc_image);+ mhi_firmware_copy(mhi_cntrl, img_buf, img_size, mhi_cntrl->fbc_image);} release_firmware(firmware); diff --git a/include/linux/mhi.h b/include/linux/mhi.h index f6de4b6..5f46dc9 100644 --- a/include/linux/mhi.h +++ b/include/linux/mhi.h @@ -306,6 +306,7 @@ struct mhi_controller_config { * @reg_len: Length of the MHI MMIO region (required) * @fbc_image: Points to firmware image buffer * @rddm_image: Points to RAM dump buffer+ * @tme_supported_image: Flag to make decision about firmware download start address (optional)* @mhi_chan: Points to the channel configuration table * @lpm_chans: List of channels that require LPM notifications * @irq: base irq # to request (required) @@ -391,6 +392,7 @@ struct mhi_controller { size_t reg_len; struct image_info *fbc_image; struct image_info *rddm_image; + bool tme_supported_image;A bool in the middle of several pointers? Surely that makes the pahole output rather sad? A lot of work went into the organization of this structure.bool bounce_buf; bool fbc_download; bool edl_download; bool wake_set; + bool standard_elf_imageThis seems good to me. Remember to adjust your addition to the structure description comment when you do this.
Thanks, will also adjust the structure description comment.BTW, "[PATCH v4 1/3] bus: mhi: host: allow MHI client drivers to provide the firmware via a pointer" from Kalle Valo has got reviewed-by tag, my patch will have conflicts with his, do I have to send my V2 patch until his patch get merged?
Thanks again and looking forward to your further review.struct mhi_chan *mhi_chan; struct list_head lpm_chans; int *irq;
