Hi Doug,
On 28-06-21, 16:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:22 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We can use GPI DMA for devices where it is enabled by firmware. Add
> > support for this mode
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/spi/spi-geni-qcom.c | 329 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 315 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> Not a truly full review since I haven't looked into the whole GSI DMA
> driver, but I tried to go over most of your changes.
>
>
> > +#define GSI_LOOPBACK_EN (BIT(0))
> > +#define GSI_CS_TOGGLE (BIT(3))
> > +#define GSI_CPHA (BIT(4))
> > +#define GSI_CPOL (BIT(5))
> > +
> > +#define MAX_TX_SG (3)
> > +#define NUM_SPI_XFER (8)
> > +#define SPI_XFER_TIMEOUT_MS (250)
>
> nit: don't need the extra parenthesis around everything above and it
> doesn't match the existing definitions too.
yes, fixed it
> > +struct gsi_desc_cb {
> > + struct spi_geni_master *mas;
> > + struct spi_transfer *xfer;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct spi_geni_gsi {
> > + dma_cookie_t tx_cookie;
> > + dma_cookie_t rx_cookie;
> > + struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx_desc;
> > + struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *rx_desc;
> > + struct gsi_desc_cb tx_cb;
> > + struct gsi_desc_cb rx_cb;
> > +};
>
> I'd be curious if others feel the same way, but to me it kinda feels
> like this should be:
>
> struct spi_geni_gsi_pipe {
> dma_cookie_t cookie;
> struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *desc;
> struct gsi_desc_cb cb;
> };
>
> struct spi_geni_gsi {
> spi_geni_gsi_pipe tx;
> spi_geni_gsi_pipe rx;
> };
>
> That would actually make spi_gsi_callback_result() more elegant
> because you could pass in the correct structure and then a string "RX"
> or "TX" and get rid of the bool.
So this and the below comment about using spi fwk to do that wait, made
me ponder upon this bit. So I went ahead with scissors and managed to
chop this off as well as the waiting routines below. This makes code
simpler to read as well.
So we dont need these structs here and wait code anymore.
> > @@ -84,6 +110,13 @@ struct spi_geni_master {
> > int irq;
> > bool cs_flag;
> > bool abort_failed;
> > + struct spi_geni_gsi *gsi;
>
> Maybe do something to make it obvious that this points to an array of
> NUM_SPI_XFER transfers.
> If my math is right then "gsi" is expected to be about 256 bytes big.
> I guess you made this a pointer and only allocated it in GSI mode to
> save those 256 bytes in non-GSI mode?
> > +static void
> > +spi_gsi_callback_result(void *cb, const struct dmaengine_result *result, bool tx)
> > +{
> > + struct gsi_desc_cb *gsi = cb;
> > +
> > + if (result->result != DMA_TRANS_NOERROR) {id'd do
> > + dev_err(gsi->mas->dev, "%s DMA txn failed\n", tx ? "TX" : "RX");
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!result->residue) {
> > + if (tx)
> > + complete(&gsi->mas->tx_cb);
> > + else
> > + complete(&gsi->mas->rx_cb);
> > + } else {
> > + dev_err(gsi->mas->dev, "%s DMA txn has pending %d data\n",
> > + tx ? "TX" : "RX", result->residue);
>
> I guess you just wait for the timeout in this case since you don't complete?
> > +static int setup_gsi_xfer(struct spi_transfer *xfer, struct spi_geni_master *mas,
> > + struct spi_device *spi_slv, struct spi_master *spi)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags = DMA_PREP_INTERRUPT | DMA_CTRL_ACK;
> > + struct spi_geni_gsi *gsi;
> > + struct dma_slave_config config = {};
> > + struct gpi_spi_config peripheral = {};
> > + unsigned long timeout, jiffies;
>
> Is it really a good idea to have a local variable called "jiffies"?
> Isn't the global called "jiffies"?
removed now
> > + int ret, i;
> > +
> > + config.peripheral_config = &peripheral;
> > + config.peripheral_size = sizeof(peripheral);
> > + peripheral.set_config = true;
> > +
> > + if (xfer->bits_per_word != mas->cur_bits_per_word ||
> > + xfer->speed_hz != mas->cur_speed_hz) {
> > + mas->cur_bits_per_word = xfer->bits_per_word;
> > + mas->cur_speed_hz = xfer->speed_hz;
> > + }
>
> It seems a bit pointless to copy these things into "mas" for GSI mode
> and even more pointless to have the "if" test first.
>
> In FIFO mode I believe we stored them in "mas" because we needed them
> from the interrupt handler. It also lets us optimize and avoid calls
> if the config didn't change. You don't need them for either of these
> reasons, do you?
agreed, cleaned that up
> Actually, you might possibly want to keep "cur_speed_hz" and use it to
> avoid a call to get_spi_clk_cfg() which, at least at one point in
> time, was a bit slow.
Okay, thanks for suggestion, I can do that.
> > + if (!(mas->cur_bits_per_word % MIN_WORD_LEN)) {
> > + peripheral.rx_len = ((xfer->len << 3) / mas->cur_bits_per_word);
> > + } else {
> > + int bytes_per_word = (mas->cur_bits_per_word / BITS_PER_BYTE) + 1;
> > +
> > + peripheral.rx_len = (xfer->len / bytes_per_word);
> > + }
>
> I guess you could only do the above if "rx_buf" and then you don't
> have to zero it back out below.
yes updated
> > + if (xfer->tx_buf && xfer->rx_buf) {
> > + peripheral.cmd = SPI_DUPLEX;
> > + } else if (xfer->tx_buf) {
> > + peripheral.cmd = SPI_TX;
> > + peripheral.rx_len = 0;
> > + } else if (xfer->rx_buf) {
> > + peripheral.cmd = SPI_RX;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (spi_slv->mode & SPI_LOOP)
> > + peripheral.loopback_en = true;
> > + if (spi_slv->mode & SPI_CPOL)
> > + peripheral.clock_pol_high = true;
> > + if (spi_slv->mode & SPI_CPHA)
> > + peripheral.data_pol_high = true;
>
> nit: I'd do it without the "if"s.
>
> peripheral.loopback_en = spi_slv->mode & SPI_LOOP;
Good suggestion, updated now.
> In theory much of this could also be done at function init time but I
> dunno if it makes a huge difference, like:
>
> struct gpi_spi_config peripheral = {
> .loopback_en = spi_slv->mode & SPI_LOOP,
> .clock_pol_high = spi_slv->mode & SPI_CPOL,
> ...
> };
Still kept it runtime, lets me know in next rev if we can do better :)
> > + peripheral.cs = spi_slv->chip_select;
> > + peripheral.pack_en = true;
> > + peripheral.word_len = xfer->bits_per_word - MIN_WORD_LEN;
> > + peripheral.fragmentation = FRAGMENTATION;
> > +
> > + ret = get_spi_clk_cfg(mas->cur_speed_hz, mas,
> > + &peripheral.clk_src, &peripheral.clk_div);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Err in get_spi_clk_cfg() :%d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + gsi = &mas->gsi[mas->num_xfers];
>
> It sure feels like you should error-check this against NUM_SPI_XFER.
> Otherwise if someone does a transfer with more than 8 parts you're
> totally hosed, right?
>
> Actually, why do you even need an array here? It seems like by the
> time this function exits the transfer will be all done, right? So you
> can just keep using the same structure over and over again? It can
> even be on the stack?
This was the trigger so things are on stack now and cleaned, pls see
next rev, should be out in next few days
> > + gsi->rx_cb.mas = mas;
> > + gsi->rx_cb.xfer = xfer;
> > +
> > + if (peripheral.cmd & SPI_RX) {
> > + dmaengine_slave_config(mas->rx, &config);
> > + gsi->rx_desc = dmaengine_prep_slave_sg(mas->rx, xfer->rx_sg.sgl, xfer->rx_sg.nents,
> > + DMA_DEV_TO_MEM, flags);
> > + if (!gsi->rx_desc) {
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Err setting up rx desc\n");
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> > + gsi->rx_desc->callback_result = spi_gsi_rx_callback_result;
> > + gsi->rx_desc->callback_param = &gsi->rx_cb;
> > + }
> > +
> > + dmaengine_slave_config(mas->tx, &config);
> > + gsi->tx_desc = dmaengine_prep_slave_sg(mas->tx, xfer->tx_sg.sgl, xfer->tx_sg.nents,
> > + DMA_MEM_TO_DEV, flags);
> > + if (!gsi->tx_desc) {
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Err setting up tx desc\n");
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
>
> I haven't dug deeply, but it surprises me that we do all the TX config
> even if "xfer->tx_buf" is NULL.
GPI DMA :) We _always_ need TX even for RX. I am adding a note here for
that
> > + gsi->tx_cb.mas = mas;
> > + gsi->tx_cb.xfer = xfer;
> > + gsi->tx_desc->callback_result = spi_gsi_tx_callback_result;
> > + gsi->tx_desc->callback_param = &gsi->tx_cb;
> > +
> > + if (peripheral.cmd & SPI_RX)
> > + gsi->rx_cookie = dmaengine_submit(gsi->rx_desc);
> > + gsi->tx_cookie = dmaengine_submit(gsi->tx_desc);
> > +
> > + if (peripheral.cmd & SPI_RX)
> > + dma_async_issue_pending(mas->rx);
> > + dma_async_issue_pending(mas->tx);
> > + mas->num_xfers++;
> > +
> > + jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_XFER_TIMEOUT_MS);
> > + timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mas->tx_cb, jiffies);
>
> You're waiting a hardcoded 250 ms for every transfer. That could be
> too short for a long transfer. Can you use some logic like the SPI
> framework?
>
> It's probably also worth adding a comment about why you can't just
> return "1" from transfer_one() for GSI mode and let the SPI framework
> handle the timeout calculations. My guess is that you might need extra
> time because another processor might hold the SPI bus and keep you
> from starting your transfer right away and thus your timeout needs to
> be somehow longer than the normal SPI framework. Is that true?
>
> Actually, it looks like spi_transfer_wait() already has 200 ms of
> slop. Is that enough for you? Can you just let the SPI framework
> handle the timeout?
I have removed the code and returned 1 :)
>
> > + if (timeout <= 0) {
>
> Just "== 0". "timeout" is unsigned, right?
>
>
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Tx[%d] timeout%lu\n", i, timeout);
>
> timeout is always 0 in this printout.
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + goto err_gsi_geni_transfer_one;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (peripheral.cmd & SPI_RX) {
> > + jiffies = msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_XFER_TIMEOUT_MS);
> > + timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(&mas->rx_cb, jiffies);
>
> Why do you need to re-init the timeout? You should just wait for
> however much is left from the previous wait? The TX and RX should be
> happening in parallel, right? So you don't want to wait for a full
> second transfer.
>
> > + if (timeout <= 0) {
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Rx[%d] timeout%lu\n", i, timeout);
> > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + goto err_gsi_geni_transfer_one;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + spi_finalize_current_transfer(spi);
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +err_gsi_geni_transfer_one:
> > + dmaengine_terminate_all(mas->tx);
>
> I know not what I'm talking about, but the description of
> dmaengine_terminate_all says "This function is DEPRECATED". It also
> seems like the old "terminate_all" is async? That's bad because you
> gave it stack pointers...
>
> You almost certainly want a WARN_ON or something like that if you fail
> to terminate the transfer because, presumably, the DMA engine will
> keep looking at your config that's stored on the stack (that you're
> freeing by ending the function). That's super bad and I'd want a
> pretty serious warning in my logs if it might be happening.
Oops, somehow this got missed, we are supposed to use
dmaengine_terminate_sync() here... I think I have updated i2c one but
missed here
> > +static bool geni_can_dma(struct spi_controller *ctlr,
> > + struct spi_device *slv, struct spi_transfer *xfer)
> > +{
> > + struct spi_geni_master *mas = spi_master_get_devdata(slv->master);
> > +
> > + /* check if dma is supported */
> > + if (mas->cur_xfer_mode == GENI_GPI_DMA)
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
>
> nit: might as well handle GENI_SE_DMA as well since it's just as easy
> to test against GENI_SE_FIFO?
I think I will leave that for the person adding GENI_SE_DMA support :)
> nit: no need for an if.
>
> So just: return mas->cur_xfer_mode != GENI_SE_FIFO;
Done
> > static int spi_geni_prepare_message(struct spi_master *spi,
> > struct spi_message *spi_msg)
> > {
> > - int ret;
> > struct spi_geni_master *mas = spi_master_get_devdata(spi);
> > + int ret;
> >
> > - if (spi_geni_is_abort_still_pending(mas))
> > - return -EBUSY;
> > + switch (mas->cur_xfer_mode) {
> > + case GENI_SE_FIFO:
> > + if (spi_geni_is_abort_still_pending(mas))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + ret = setup_fifo_params(spi_msg->spi, spi);
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Couldn't select mode %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> >
> > - ret = setup_fifo_params(spi_msg->spi, spi);
> > - if (ret)
> > - dev_err(mas->dev, "Couldn't select mode %d\n", ret);
> > + case GENI_GPI_DMA:
> > + mas->num_xfers = 0;
> > + reinit_completion(&mas->tx_cb);
> > + reinit_completion(&mas->rx_cb);
> > + memset(mas->gsi, 0, (sizeof(struct spi_geni_gsi) * NUM_SPI_XFER));
>
> nit: make a #define for the size and use it here and in allocation?
Removed the struct so no longer needed
> > +static int spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(struct spi_geni_master *mas)
> > +{
> > + size_t gsi_sz;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + mas->tx = dma_request_chan(mas->dev, "tx");
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mas->tx)) {
>
> I don't think dma_request_chan() can return NULL.
No it cant, updated now!
>
>
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Failed to get tx DMA ch %ld", PTR_ERR(mas->tx));
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(mas->tx);
>
> niftier: ret = dev_err_probe(mas->dev, PTR_ERR(mas->tx), "Failed to
> get tx DMA ch\n");
>
> If you don't think that's nifty, at least you should add a "\n" to
> your error message.
I like dev_err_probe(), updated along with missing "\n"
>
>
> > + goto err_tx;
> > + }
>
> Personally I'm a fan of devm_add_action_or_reset() to simplify error
> handling like this. Everything becomes easier to handle then.
>
> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(mas->dev, spi_geni_dma_release_chan, mas->tx);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> You've got to make a tiny spi_geni_dma_release_chan() function that
> just wraps dma_release_chan() (or cast and violate the C standard) but
> then you get rid of all error handling in this function, get rid of
> the code you had to add to remove and the code you forgot to add the
> the probe() function (see below). :-)
So after reworking code, there is little error handling, so I am
skipping it for next rev
> > + mas->rx = dma_request_chan(mas->dev, "rx");
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mas->rx)) {
> > + dev_err(mas->dev, "Failed to get rx DMA ch %ld", PTR_ERR(mas->rx));
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(mas->rx);
> > + goto err_rx;
> > + }
> > +
> > + gsi_sz = sizeof(struct spi_geni_gsi) * NUM_SPI_XFER;
> > + mas->gsi = devm_kzalloc(mas->dev, gsi_sz, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mas->gsi))
> > + goto err_mem;
>
> This is not correct. kzalloc() never returns errors, just NULL. ...and
> you don't set "ret".
>
> Also: since you re-use this over and over and zero it before each
> transfer, you could probably avoid the zero-allocation.
>
>
> > @@ -349,15 +594,15 @@ static int spi_geni_init(struct spi_geni_master *mas)
> > {
> > struct geni_se *se = &mas->se;
> > unsigned int proto, major, minor, ver;
> > - u32 spi_tx_cfg;
> > + u32 spi_tx_cfg, fifo_disable;
> > + int ret = -ENXIO;
> >
> > pm_runtime_get_sync(mas->dev);
> >
> > proto = geni_se_read_proto(se);
> > if (proto != GENI_SE_SPI) {
> > dev_err(mas->dev, "Invalid proto %d\n", proto);
> > - pm_runtime_put(mas->dev);
> > - return -ENXIO;
> > + goto out_pm;
>
> nit: In theory this change could be relegated to a tiny cleanup patch
> just to make your GPI change smaller to review, but I won't insist.
This is looking better in next rev :)
> > @@ -380,15 +625,38 @@ static int spi_geni_init(struct spi_geni_master *mas)
> > else
> > mas->oversampling = 1;
> >
> > - geni_se_select_mode(se, GENI_SE_FIFO);
> > + fifo_disable = readl(se->base + GENI_IF_DISABLE_RO) & FIFO_IF_DISABLE;
> > + switch (fifo_disable) {
> > + case 1:
> > + ret = spi_geni_grab_gpi_chan(mas);
> > + if (!ret) { /* success case */
> > + mas->cur_xfer_mode = GENI_GPI_DMA;
> > + geni_se_select_mode(se, GENI_GPI_DMA);
> > + dev_dbg(mas->dev, "Using GPI DMA mode for SPI\n");
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + /*
> > + * in case of failure to get dma channel, we can till do the
> > + * FIFO mode, so fallthrough
>
> s/till/still/
ack
>
> > + */
> > + dev_warn(mas->dev, "FIFO mode disabled, but couldn't get DMA, fall back to FIFO mode\n");
> > + fallthrough;
>
> I was under the impression that if `FIFO_IF_DISABLE` was set that the
> FIFO was, how shall we say it, "disabled". ;-) If you can in fact fall
> back to FIFO mode then that bit seems pretty poorly named.
So on few places I have seen fall back work and some it doesn't so name
seems correct. Now the question is should we _try_ to fallback on
disabled fifo or not.. :)
> > static irqreturn_t geni_spi_isr(int irq, void *data)
> > @@ -671,6 +942,15 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (irq < 0)
> > return irq;
> >
> > + ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(64));
>
> nit: this function already has the line:
>
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>
> ...so you can use "dev". :-)
updated here and few more places
>
>
> > + if (ret) {
> > + ret = dma_set_mask_and_coherent(&pdev->dev, DMA_BIT_MASK(32));
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not set DMA mask\n");
> > + return ret;
>
> niftier: return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "could not set DMA mask\n");
>
>
> > @@ -710,14 +990,17 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > spi->max_speed_hz = 50000000;
> > spi->prepare_message = spi_geni_prepare_message;
> > spi->transfer_one = spi_geni_transfer_one;
> > + spi->can_dma = geni_can_dma;
> > + spi->dma_map_dev = mas->dev->parent;
>
> mas->dev->parent == dev->parent ?
>
>
> > @@ -738,6 +1021,14 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (ret)
> > goto spi_geni_probe_runtime_disable;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * check the mode supported and set_cs for fifo mode only
> > + * for dma (gsi) mode, the gsi will set cs based on params passed in
> > + * TRE
> > + */
> > + if (mas->cur_xfer_mode == GENI_SE_FIFO)
> > + spi->set_cs = spi_geni_set_cs;
>
> I'm curious: is there no way to get set_cs() working in GPI mode? In
> an off-thread conversation Qualcomm seemed to indicate that it was
> possible, but maybe they didn't quite understand what I was asking.
>
> Without an implementation of set_cs() there will be drivers in Linux
> that simply aren't compatible because they make the assumption that
> they can lock the bus, set the CS, and do several transfers that are
> part of some logical "transaction". I believe that both of the SPI
> peripherals on boards that I work on, cros-ec and the SPI TPM make
> this assumption. I don't even believe that the drivers can be "fixed"
> because the requirement is more at the protocol level. The protocol
> requires you to do things like:
>
> 0. Lock the bus.
> 1. Set the CS.
> 2. Transfer a few bytes, reading the response as you go.
> 3. Once you see the other side respond that it's ready, transfer some
> more bytes.
> 4. Release the CS.
> 5. Unlock the bus.
>
> You can't do this without a set_cs() implementation because of the
> requirement to read the responses of the other side before moving on
> to the next phase of the transfer.
>
> As I understand it this is roughly the equivalent of i2c clock
> stretching but much more ad-hoc and defined peripherals-by-peripheral.
>
> In any case, I guess you must have examples of peripherals that need
> GPI mode and don't need set_cs() so we shouldn't block your way
> forward, but I'm just curious if you had more info on this.
So I have asked some qcom folks, they tell me it is _possible_ to use
the cs bit in the TRE and it can work. But TBH I am not yet convinced it
would work as advertised. So do you enable the GPI mode for chrome books
or it is SE DMA mode (i think SE DMA mode might be simpler to use for
your case)
>
>
> > static int spi_geni_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > struct spi_master *spi = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > @@ -762,6 +1061,8 @@ static int spi_geni_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > /* Unregister _before_ disabling pm_runtime() so we stop transfers */
> > spi_unregister_master(spi);
> >
> > + spi_geni_release_dma_chan(mas);
> > +
>
> Why isn't there a call to spi_geni_release_dma_chan() in the error
> paths for probe?
Fixed
--
~Vinod
