On 2018-04-16 10:14, Evan Green wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:08 PM <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2018-04-12 15:02, Evan Green wrote:
> Hi Rishabh,
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:09 PM Rishabh Bhatnagar
> <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> LLCC (Last Level Cache Controller) provides additional cache memory
>> in the system. LLCC is partitioned into multiple slices and each
>> slice gets its own priority, size, ID and other config parameters.
>> LLCC driver programs these parameters for each slice. Clients that
>> are assigned to use LLCC need to get information such size & ID of the
>> slice they get and activate or deactivate the slice as needed. LLCC
>> driver
>> provides API for the clients to perform these operations.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/soc/qcom/Kconfig | 17 ++
>> drivers/soc/qcom/Makefile | 2 +
>> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-sdm845.c | 110 ++++++++++
>> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c | 404
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h | 168 +++++++++++++++
>> 5 files changed, 701 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-sdm845.c
>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h
>
> [...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-sdm845.c
> b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-sdm845.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..619b226
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-sdm845.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2017-2018, The Linux Foundation. All rights
>> reserved.
>> + *
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * SCT(System Cache Table) entry contains of the following parameters
>
> contains the following members:
>
>> + * name: Name of the client's use case for which the llcc slice is
>> used
>> + * uid: Unique id for the client's use case
>
> s/uid/usecase_id/
>
>> + * slice_id: llcc slice id for each client
>> + * max_cap: The maximum capacity of the cache slice provided in KB
>> + * priority: Priority of the client used to select victim line for
> replacement
>> + * fixed_size: Determine if the slice has a fixed capacity
>
> "Boolean indicating if the slice has a fixed capacity" might be better
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c
>> b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..67a81b0
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-slice.c
> ...
>> +static int llcc_update_act_ctrl(struct llcc_drv_data *drv, u32 sid,
>> + u32 act_ctrl_reg_val, u32 status)
>> +{
>> + u32 act_ctrl_reg;
>> + u32 status_reg;
>> + u32 slice_status;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + act_ctrl_reg = drv->bcast_off + LLCC_TRP_ACT_CTRLn(sid);
>> + status_reg = drv->bcast_off + LLCC_TRP_STATUSn(sid);
>> +
>> + /*Set the ACTIVE trigger*/
>
> Add spaces around /* */
>
>> + act_ctrl_reg_val |= ACT_CTRL_ACT_TRIG;
>> + ret = regmap_write(drv->regmap, act_ctrl_reg,
>> act_ctrl_reg_val);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + /* Clear the ACTIVE trigger */
>> + act_ctrl_reg_val &= ~ACT_CTRL_ACT_TRIG;
>> + ret = regmap_write(drv->regmap, act_ctrl_reg,
>> act_ctrl_reg_val);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(drv->regmap, status_reg,
> slice_status,
>> + !(slice_status & status), 0,
> LLCC_STATUS_READ_DELAY);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * llcc_slice_activate - Activate the llcc slice
>> + * @desc: Pointer to llcc slice descriptor
>> + *
>> + * A value zero will be returned on success and a negative errno will
>
> a value of zero
>
>> + * be returned in error cases
>> + */
>> +int llcc_slice_activate(struct llcc_slice_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + u32 act_ctrl_val;
>> + struct llcc_drv_data *drv;
>> +
>> + if (desc == NULL)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> I think we can remove this check, right?
>
>> +
>> + drv = dev_get_drvdata(desc->dev);
>> + if (!drv)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&drv->lock);
>> + if (test_bit(desc->slice_id, drv->bitmap)) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&drv->lock);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + act_ctrl_val = ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_ACTIVATE <<
>> ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_SHIFT;
>> +
>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(drv, desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>> + DEACTIVATE);
>> +
>> + __set_bit(desc->slice_id, drv->bitmap);
>> + mutex_unlock(&drv->lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(llcc_slice_activate);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * llcc_slice_deactivate - Deactivate the llcc slice
>> + * @desc: Pointer to llcc slice descriptor
>> + *
>> + * A value zero will be returned on success and a negative errno will
>> + * be returned in error cases
>> + */
>> +int llcc_slice_deactivate(struct llcc_slice_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + u32 act_ctrl_val;
>> + int ret;
>> + struct llcc_drv_data *drv;
>> +
>> + if (desc == NULL)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + drv = dev_get_drvdata(desc->dev);
>> + if (!drv)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&drv->lock);
>> + if (!test_bit(desc->slice_id, drv->bitmap)) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&drv->lock);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> + act_ctrl_val = ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_DEACTIVATE <<
> ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_SHIFT;
>> +
>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(drv, desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>> + ACTIVATE);
>> +
>> + __clear_bit(desc->slice_id, drv->bitmap);
>> + mutex_unlock(&drv->lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(llcc_slice_deactivate);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * llcc_get_slice_id - return the slice id
>> + * @desc: Pointer to llcc slice descriptor
>> + *
>> + * A positive value will be returned on success and a negative errno
>> will
>> + * be returned on error
>> + */
>> +int llcc_get_slice_id(struct llcc_slice_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + if (!desc)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Can we remove this check too?
>
We need this check and the following one to protect against the
null pointer access which might happen if client doesn't get
the descriptor before accessing size and slice_id.
Is this just to protect against errors made during development, or is
there
an expected code path through which this might actually happen? If it's
just to protect against developer error, then based on other feedback
I've
seen on these lists, the null pointer dereference is preferred, and we
should remove this check. If it's an actual expected flow, then I guess
clients will call llcc_slice_getd(), see the ERR_PTR(-ENOENT),
transform
that into NULL, and then call these other functions anyway?
Yes, this is just to protect against development error. I will remove
the
check here and above.
-Rishabh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
