On 5/5/2017 1:22 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri 05 May 03:26 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+
+static int qcom_apcs_ipc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
+{
+ struct qcom_apcs_ipc *apcs = container_of(chan->mbox,
+ struct qcom_apcs_ipc, mbox);
+ unsigned long idx = (unsigned long)chan->con_priv;
+
+ writel(BIT(idx), apcs->base + apcs->offset);
+
When/how does this bit get ever cleared again?
You may want to add last_tx_done() callback to check if this bit is
cleared before you can send the next interrupt. And set
txdone_poll/irq accordingly.
It's a write-only register, writing a bit fires off an edge triggered
interrupt on the specific remote processor, which will ack the
associated IRQ status and handle the interrupt.
As the "message" is just a notification to the other side that it needs
to act on "something", there's no harm in notifying it multiple times
before it has a chance to ack the IRQ and a write after that will be
seen as a separate interrupt.
What causes it to return to '0'?
Technically nothing. This is not a traditional register. Its an
address that is modeled as a register that the hardware knows, when 1 is
written to the specific bit, the hardware is to take a specific action
(generate the interrupt).
As Bjorn stated, its a write only address. The hardware documentation
states not to read it. On most platforms, if you attempt to read the
address, you will always get 0, although that is not guaranteed, and
there have been platforms where attempting to read the address will
result in a bus hang.
Conceptually, the hardware automatically resets it to "0" in the next
clock cycle. Software doesn't need to care.
I think the driver should wait for it to become 0 before writing 1.
For example, the protocol has a command that says to remote cpu to
increase the voltage supply by 0.1v. This command is filled in a
structure and laid out in the shared memory before you ring the
'doorbell'. In this situation you don't want the remote cpu to act
twice on the same command. Also for a new command, you don't want to
overwrite the last command packet before remote cpu has consumed it.
That doesn't apply here. The doorbell in this case is a signal for the
remote processor to go look at the FIFO in shared memory. Since
interrupts can be lost (ie the local processor sends multiple interrupts
before the remote processor can service them, so the GIC drops them
since the interrupt is already pending), the remote processor is
required to drain the FIFO when it processes the interrupt.
There is no way to determine if the remote processor has observed a
message, that does not involve pretty trivial race conditions.
I invented this protocol. From what I've seen (granted I did not do a
thorough review), Bjorn is doing the correct thing here.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
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
