Hi Hans!
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 6:37 PM Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 20/09/2021 19:04, Dafna Hirschfeld wrote:
> > From: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When running memcpy_toio:
> > memcpy_toio(send_obj->share_buf, buf, len);
> > it was found that errors appear if len is not a multiple of 8:
> >
> > [58.350841] mtk-mdp 14001000.rdma: processing failed: -22
>
> Why do errors appear? Is that due to a HW bug? Some other reason?
MTK folks would be the best placed to answer this, but since the
failure is reported by the firmware I'd suspect either a firmware or
hardware limitation.
>
> >
> > This patch ensures the copy of a multiple of 8 size by calling
> > round_up(len, 8) when copying
> >
> > Fixes: e6599adfad30 ("media: mtk-vpu: avoid unaligned access to DTCM buffer.")
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dafna.hirschfeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Houlong Wei <houlong.wei@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > changes since v3:
> > 1. multile -> multiple
> > 2. add inline doc
> >
> > changes since v2:
> > 1. do the extra copy only if len is not multiple of 8
> >
> > changes since v1:
> > 1. change sign-off-by tags
> > 2. change values to memset
> >
> > drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c b/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> > index ec290dde59cf..1df031716c8f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/mtk-vpu/mtk_vpu.c
> > @@ -349,7 +349,20 @@ int vpu_ipi_send(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > }
> > } while (vpu_cfg_readl(vpu, HOST_TO_VPU));
> >
> > - memcpy_toio(send_obj->share_buf, buf, len);
> > + /*
> > + * when copying data to the vpu hardware, the memcpy_toio operation must copy
> > + * a multiple of 8. Otherwise the processing fails
>
> Same here: it needs to explain why the processing fails.
>
> > + */
> > + if (len % 8 != 0) {
> > + unsigned char data[SHARE_BUF_SIZE];
>
> Wouldn't it be more robust if you say:
>
> unsigned char data[sizeof(send_obj->share_buf)];
Definitely yes.
>
> I also think that the SHARE_BUF_SIZE define needs a comment stating that it must be a
> multiple of 8, otherwise unexpected things can happen.
>
> You also noticed that the current SHARE_BUF_SIZE define is too low, but I saw
> no patch correcting this. Shouldn't that be fixed as well?
AFAICT the firmware expects this exact size on its end, so I don't
believe it can be changed that easily. But maybe someone from MTK can
prove me wrong.
Cheers,
Alex.
