Hi Mathieu,
On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 10:25 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 05:44:04PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Il 16/03/22 17:34, Mathieu Poirier ha scritto:
> > > Good morning,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:11:17AM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote:
> > > > The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192.
> > > >
> > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM.
> > > >
> > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP.
> > > > These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP.
> > > >
> > > > Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are
> > > > placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is
> > > > blocked too.
> > > >
> > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used.
> > > >
> > > > This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP
> > > > L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time
> > > > blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have
> > > > to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access
> > > > EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected
> > > > behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at
> > > > the same time.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags
> > > > v3: fix build error
> > > > v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++
> > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > > > index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > > > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@
> > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030
> > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034
> > > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4)
> > > > +
> > > > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32
> > > > #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > > > index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > > > @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp)
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr)
> > > > +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask)
> > >
> > > Why is @reserved_mask needed? It is not described in the changelong and as far
> > > as I can see in this patchset the parameter is always set to '0', which has no
> > > effect on the mask that gets generated.
> > >
> >
> > Hello Mathieu,
> > the @reserved_mask is explained in perhaps not very very clear terms, meaning
> > that he's not explicitly saying the name of the new param, but that's it:
> >
> > "This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP
> > L1TCM."
> >
> > ....and it's actually being used, check below....
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mathieu
> > >
> > > > {
> > > > int i;
> > > > for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--)
> > > > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr);
> > > > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr);
> > > > writel(0, addr);
> > > > }
> > > > -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr)
> > > > +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask)
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > > +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */
> > > > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR);
> > > > +
> > > > + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* enable SRAM clock */
> > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0);
> > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0);
> > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0);
> >
> >
> > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN,
> > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS);
> >
> > here
>
> Yes - it's obvious now that you point it out.
>
> This patch conflicts with the newly added support for mt8186[1]. I tried to fix
> it but did not know if mt8185 needed the same kind of bit masking as mt8195.
> Please have a look and rebase to rproc-next.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu
Ok, I'll rebase to rproc-next at next version.
Thank you!
Best regards,
TingHan
>
> [1]. 80d691854ffb remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8186 scp
>
> >
> > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0);
> > > > /* enable MPU for all memory regions */
> > > > writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF);
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* Disable SRAM clock */
> > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0);
> > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0);
> > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0);
> > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN,
> > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS);
> >
> > and here ^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0);
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Angelo
