On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu 04 May 00:54 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote: > >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Bjorn Andersson >> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed 03 May 02:55 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote: >> > >> >> Loic, thanks for adding me. >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: linux-remoteproc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-remoteproc- >> >> >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Andersson >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 7:29 AM >> >> >> To: Andy Gross <andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring >> >> >> <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>; Ohad Ben- >> >> >> Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> >> >> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- >> >> >> remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> Subject: [PATCH v3 2/4] soc: qcom: Introduce APCS IPC driver >> >> >> >> >> >> This implements a driver that exposes the IPC bits found in the APCS Global >> >> >> block in various Qualcomm platforms. The bits are used to signal inter- >> >> >> processor communication signals from the application CPU to other masters. >> >> >> >> >> >> The driver implements the "doorbell" binding and could be used as basis for a >> >> >> new Linux framework, if found useful outside Qualcomm. >> >> >> >> >> > Hi Bjorn, >> >> > >> >> > Even if Qualcom APCS IPC is limited, why don't you rely on existing mailbox framework. >> >> > It is there to gather all IPC management under the same interface. >> >> > No need to create a new one from my pov. >> >> > If you don't provide message data, mailbox framework behaves as doorbell. >> >> > >> >> QCOM RPM reinvented the wheel for what mailbox framework already did, >> >> despite my pointing it out => >> >> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail//linux/kernel/1406.2/03918.html >> >> >> > >> > The RPM interface works by writing various information in shared DRAM >> > and then invoking an interrupt on the remote processor. >> > >> This is what _most_ platforms do, and they use mailbox framework. If >> mailbox framework doesn't suit RPM, then it doesn't suit most >> platforms that use it. >> >> > My argumentation against using the mailbox framework for the RPM case >> > was that the message model is a software construct and doesn't fit the >> > mailbox framework. >> > >> Mailbox framework works beneath protocol layer (software construct). >> As I said years ago, the h/w bits of the controller should be under >> mailbox api, while the message structures and signals are protocol >> specific and be in QCOM specific location. >> > > Okay, now I finally get what you're saying. The RPM driver handles the > protocol but the actual triggering of the remote interrupt should be > done via the mailbox framework. > > That makes sense, until now I haven't seen the need for having a driver > exposing the APCS IPC register (used by among others the RPM driver), > but I will rewrite this patch as a mailbox controller and turn the RPM > driver into a mailbox client. > Cool, thanks. >> >> > But which one of these would be appropriate for a "mailbox channel" that >> > doesn't have any actual messages? >> > >> > mbox_send_message(chan, NULL) >> > or >> > const int one = 1; >> > mbox_send_message(chan, (void*)&one); >> > >> It depends upon your h/w. >> If each physical channel is hardwired to work on a predefined single >> bit, then the driver could do without that bit being explicitly >> passed. >> If a physical channel can be mapped onto any bit(s), then you do need >> to pass that info via mbox_send_message(). >> > > It's a 32-bit register, writing a bit invokes the associated interrupt > on some remote processor. I.e. bits 0, 1 and 2 represents different > interrupts on the resource-power-management CPU while bit 12, 13, 14 and > 15 will invoke interrupts on a modem CPU. > No problem. For such arrangement, you could have a channel per interrupt/bit. Have the DT specify which bit goes as what interrupt to which cpu. The controller driver would then associate each channel to its 'bit' and a client would always acquire the right channel (specified by DT) and need not know/pass which bit should be set for its messages i.e, mbox_send_message(chan, NULL) > I'll rework the proposed driver and we can look at the actual > implementation instead. > >> >> >> The driver bypassed mailbox framework and was pushed via another tree. >> >> Same is being attempted now, only now it is more expensive to switch >> >> to generic mailbox framework having spent so much time on QCOM >> >> specific implementation of controller and protocol drivers inside >> >> drivers/soc/qcom/ >> > >> > I'm not sure I follow this, there's no extensive rework going on here - >> > all I'm trying to do is abstract the "writel(BIT(x), ipc_reg)" line of >> > the RPM driver, because it's being used in other clients as well. >> > >> No, I meant ideally RPM should have used mailbox api for the >> controller programming, but moving to that now will be expensive >> because you already developed huge code base around QCOM specific >> mailbox implementation. >> > > The part discussed above was implemented using syscon, so it's a few > lines of code to grab hold of a handle and instead of > mbox_send_message() there is a single call to regmap_write(). All the > other parts of the implementation is protocol-specific, and as you say > the next layer up. So the transition is quite straight forward! > Great! Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
