Good afternoon,
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:31:54PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> This patch makes each r5 core mailbox client and uses
> tx and rx channels to send and receive data to/from
> remote processor respectively. This is needed for rpmsg
> communication to remote processor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - fix vrings carveout names as expeceted by remoteproc framework
>
This should be in a patch on its own along with a "Fixes" tag.
> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 352 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 292 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 2db57d394155..45ce7f2089bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -8,16 +8,23 @@
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> #include <linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> -#include <linux/slab.h>
>
> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>
> +/* IPI buffer MAX length */
> +#define IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX 32U
> +
The documentation for struct zynqmp_ipi_message clearly states that @data is
fixed to 12 bytes, whereas here is it set to 32 bytes. Wrong documentation or
bug?
> +/* RX mailbox client buffer max length */
> +#define MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX (IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX + \
> + sizeof(struct zynqmp_ipi_message))
> /*
> * settings for RPU cluster mode which
> * reflects possible values of xlnx,cluster-mode dt-property
> @@ -65,6 +72,12 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks[] = {
> * @rmem: reserved memory region nodes from device tree
> * @rproc: rproc handle
> * @pm_domain_id: RPU CPU power domain id
> + * @rx_mc_buf: to copy data from mailbox rx channel
> + * @tx_mc_buf: to copy data to mailbox tx channel
> + * @mbox_work: schedule work after receiving data from mailbox
> + * @mbox_cl: mailbox client
> + * @tx_chan: mailbox tx channel
> + * @rx_chan: mailbox rx channel
> */
> struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> struct device *dev;
> @@ -75,6 +88,14 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> struct rproc *rproc;
> u32 pm_domain_id;
> +
> + /* mailbox related data structures */
> + unsigned char rx_mc_buf[MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX];
> + unsigned char tx_mc_buf[MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX];
> + struct work_struct mbox_work;
> + struct mbox_client mbox_cl;
> + struct mbox_chan *tx_chan;
> + struct mbox_chan *rx_chan;
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -92,6 +113,181 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_cluster {
> struct zynqmp_r5_core **r5_cores;
> };
>
> +/**
> + * event_notified_idr_cb() - callback for vq_interrupt per notifyid
> + * @id: rproc->notify id
> + * @ptr: pointer to idr private data
> + * @data: data passed to idr_for_each callback
> + *
> + * Pass notification to remoteproc virtio
> + *
> + * Return: 0. having return is to satisfy the idr_for_each() function
> + * pointer input argument requirement.
> + **/
> +static int event_notified_idr_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data)
> +{
> + struct rproc *rproc = data;
> +
> + if (rproc_vq_interrupt(rproc, id) == IRQ_NONE)
> + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "data not found for vqid=%d\n", id);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * handle_event_notified() - remoteproc notification work function
> + * @work: pointer to the work structure
> + *
> + * It checks each registered remoteproc notify IDs.
> + */
> +static void handle_event_notified(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> + struct rproc *rproc;
> +
> + r5_core = container_of(work, struct zynqmp_r5_core, mbox_work);
> + rproc = r5_core->rproc;
> +
> + /*
> + * We only use IPI for interrupt. The RPU firmware side may or may
> + * not write the notifyid when it trigger IPI.
> + * And thus, we scan through all the registered notifyids and
> + * find which one is valid to get the message.
> + * Even if message from firmware is NULL, we attempt to get vqid
> + */
> + idr_for_each(&rproc->notifyids, event_notified_idr_cb, rproc);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb() - receive channel mailbox callback
> + * @cl: mailbox client
> + * @msg: message pointer
> + *
> + * Receive data from ipi buffer, ack interrupt and then
> + * it will schedule the R5 notification work.
> + */
> +static void zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb(struct mbox_client *cl, void *msg)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_ipi_message *ipi_msg, *buf_msg;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> + size_t len;
> +
> + r5_core = container_of(cl, struct zynqmp_r5_core, mbox_cl);
> +
> + /* copy data from ipi buffer to r5_core */
> + ipi_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)msg;
> + buf_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)r5_core->rx_mc_buf;
> + len = ipi_msg->len;
> + if (len > IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX) {
> + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, "msg size exceeded than %d\n",
> + IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX);
> + len = IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX;
> + }
> + buf_msg->len = len;
> + memcpy(buf_msg->data, ipi_msg->data, len);
> +
> + /* received and processed interrupt ack */
> + if (mbox_send_message(r5_core->rx_chan, NULL) < 0)
> + dev_err(r5_core->dev, "ack failed to mbox rx_chan\n");
> +
> + schedule_work(&r5_core->mbox_work);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox() - Setup mailboxes related properties
> + * this is used for each individual R5 core
> + *
> + * @r5_core: pointer to the ZynqMP r5 core data
> + *
> + * Function to setup mailboxes related properties
> + *
> + */
> +static void zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + struct mbox_client *mbox_cl;
> +
> + cluster = dev_get_drvdata(r5_core->dev->parent);
> +
> + /**
Extra '*', please remove.
> + * ToDo: Use only one IPI channel for APU to communicate with both RPUs
> + * in split mode. As of now, two IPI channels are expeceted for APU
> + * to communicate with RPU. for example, APU(IPI0)<-> RPU0(IPI1) and
> + * APU(IPI7)<->RPU1(IPI2). However, this is not the optimized use
> + * of the hardware. As per hardware reference manual, each IPI channel
> + * can receive interrupt from another IPI channel. So APU must be able
> + * to communicate with both RPUs simultaneously using same IPI channel.
> + * For example, this is valid case: APU(IPI0)<->RPU0(IPI1) and
> + * APU(IPI0)<->RPU1(IPI2). However, with current available examples
> + * and RPU firmware, this configuration in device-tree is causing system-crash.
> + * And so, using extra IPI channel is required in device-tree. In split
> + * mode explicitly inform user about this limitation and requirement.
> + */
> + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE)
> + dev_warn(r5_core->dev, "split mode: APU should use two IPI channels\n");
This comment doesn't do anything useful, please remove.
> +
> + mbox_cl = &r5_core->mbox_cl;
> + mbox_cl->rx_callback = zynqmp_r5_mb_rx_cb;
> + mbox_cl->tx_block = false;
> + mbox_cl->knows_txdone = false;
> + mbox_cl->tx_done = NULL;
> + mbox_cl->dev = r5_core->dev;
> +
> + /* Request TX and RX channels */
> + r5_core->tx_chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(mbox_cl, "tx");
> + if (IS_ERR(r5_core->tx_chan)) {
> + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + r5_core->rx_chan = mbox_request_channel_byname(mbox_cl, "rx");
> + if (IS_ERR(r5_core->rx_chan)) {
> + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->tx_chan);
> + r5_core->rx_chan = NULL;
> + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + INIT_WORK(&r5_core->mbox_work, handle_event_notified);
> +}
> +
> +static void zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> +{
> + if (r5_core->tx_chan) {
> + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->tx_chan);
> + r5_core->tx_chan = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + if (r5_core->rx_chan) {
> + mbox_free_channel(r5_core->rx_chan);
> + r5_core->rx_chan = NULL;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * zynqmp_r5_core_kick() - kick a firmware if mbox is provided
> + * @rproc: r5 core's corresponding rproc structure
> + * @vqid: virtqueue ID
> + */
> +static void zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
> + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
> + struct zynqmp_ipi_message *mb_msg;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* don't handle kick if mbox setup failed for this core */
> + if (!r5_core->tx_chan && !r5_core->rx_chan)
> + return;
> +
> + mb_msg = (struct zynqmp_ipi_message *)r5_core->tx_mc_buf;
> + memcpy(mb_msg->data, &vqid, sizeof(vqid));
> + mb_msg->len = sizeof(vqid);
> + ret = mbox_send_message(r5_core->tx_chan, mb_msg);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_warn(dev, "failed to send message\n");
> +}
> +
> /*
> * zynqmp_r5_set_mode()
> *
> @@ -227,6 +423,63 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap(struct rproc *rproc,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node()
> + * parse memory-region property and get reserved mem regions
> + *
> + * @r5_core: pointer to zynqmp_r5_core type object
> + *
> + * Return: 0 for success and error code for failure.
> + */
> +static int zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np, *rmem_np;
> + struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> + int res_mem_count, i;
> + struct device *dev;
> +
> + dev = r5_core->dev;
> + np = r5_core->np;
> +
> + res_mem_count = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
> + sizeof(phandle));
> +
> + if (res_mem_count <= 0) {
> + dev_warn(dev, "failed to get memory-region property %d\n",
> + res_mem_count);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (!r5_core->tx_chan && !r5_core->rx_chan)
> + res_mem_count = 1;
Hackish, please remove. There should not be a need to mix mailbox information
with memory regions.
> +
> + rmem = devm_kcalloc(dev, res_mem_count,
> + sizeof(struct reserved_mem *), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!rmem)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < res_mem_count; i++) {
> + rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i);
> + if (!rmem_np)
> + goto release_rmem;
> +
> + rmem[i] = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
> + if (!rmem[i]) {
> + of_node_put(rmem_np);
> + goto release_rmem;
> + }
> +
> + of_node_put(rmem_np);
> + }
> +
> + r5_core->rmem_count = res_mem_count;
> + r5_core->rmem = rmem;
> + return 0;
> +
> +release_rmem:
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * add_mem_regions_carveout()
> * @rproc: single R5 core's corresponding rproc instance
> @@ -241,6 +494,7 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
> struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
> struct reserved_mem *rmem;
> int i, num_mem_regions;
> + const char *name;
>
> r5_core = (struct zynqmp_r5_core *)rproc->priv;
> num_mem_regions = r5_core->rmem_count;
> @@ -253,15 +507,33 @@ static int add_mem_regions_carveout(struct rproc *rproc)
> rproc_mem = rproc_of_resm_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, i,
> rmem->size,
> rmem->base,
> - rmem->name);
> + "vdev0buffer");
This looks very hackish.
> } else {
> + /*
> + * As per bindings 3rd entry in memory-region property
> + * must contain vring0 and 4th entry must contain vring1
> + * memory-regions. For remoteproc framework it is
> + * required to have fixed names for these carveouts i.e.
> + * in the form of "vdev%dvring%d" where first %d is ID
> + * of vdev and second %d is ID of vring. Assign fix names
> + * instead of node names, as node names may contain
> + * @unit-address as well i.e. vdev0vring0@xxxxxxxx which
> + * won't work.
> + */
> + if (!strncmp(rmem->name, "vdev0vring0", strlen("vdev0vring0")))
> + name = "vdev0vring0";
> + else if (!strncmp(rmem->name, "vdev0vring1", strlen("vdev0vring1")))
> + name = "vdev0vring1";
> + else
> + name = rmem->name;
> +
So does this. It would be much better to get the right rmem->name before
getting to this function, something that should be done in
zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(). Look at stm32_rproc_prepare() for an example
on how to get the right name reserve memory entries.
I am also reasonning this problem has become obvious now that mailboxes are
working. That said I also think it should have been caught when the patchset
adding support for r5f was worked on.
> /* Register associated reserved memory regions */
> rproc_mem = rproc_mem_entry_init(&rproc->dev, NULL,
> (dma_addr_t)rmem->base,
> rmem->size, rmem->base,
> zynqmp_r5_mem_region_map,
> zynqmp_r5_mem_region_unmap,
> - rmem->name);
> + name);
> }
>
> if (!rproc_mem)
> @@ -572,6 +844,20 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> return ret;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * If mailbox nodes are disabled using "status" property then setting up
> + * mailbox channels will be failed and in that case, we don't need vrings
> + * and vdevbuffer for this core. So, setup mailbox before parsing
> + * memory-region property. If "tx" and "rx" mailboxes are not setup, then
> + * only parse and add first memory-region carveout. As per bindings, it
> + * must be firmware load region
> + */
> + zynqmp_r5_setup_mbox(rproc->priv);
> +
Setting up mailboxes should return an error code when not successful. Moreover,
why do mailboxes have to be initialised at prepare() time and not once in the
probe() function?
> + ret = zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(rproc->priv);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "memory-region prop failed %d\n", ret);
> +
> ret = add_mem_regions_carveout(rproc);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get reserve mem regions %d\n", ret);
> @@ -597,6 +883,8 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>
> r5_core = (struct zynqmp_r5_core *)rproc->priv;
>
> + zynqmp_r5_free_mbox(r5_core);
> +
> for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) {
> pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id;
> if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id))
> @@ -617,6 +905,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
> .find_loaded_rsc_table = rproc_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table,
> .sanity_check = rproc_elf_sanity_check,
> .get_boot_addr = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
> + .kick = zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick,
A kick() function should added only when mailboxes are present rather than
invariably as it is now.
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -726,59 +1015,6 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_get_tcm_node(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/**
> - * zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node()
> - * parse memory-region property and get reserved mem regions
> - *
> - * @r5_core: pointer to zynqmp_r5_core type object
> - *
> - * Return: 0 for success and error code for failure.
> - */
> -static int zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
> -{
> - struct device_node *np, *rmem_np;
> - struct reserved_mem **rmem;
> - int res_mem_count, i;
> - struct device *dev;
> -
> - dev = r5_core->dev;
> - np = r5_core->np;
> -
> - res_mem_count = of_property_count_elems_of_size(np, "memory-region",
> - sizeof(phandle));
> - if (res_mem_count <= 0) {
> - dev_warn(dev, "failed to get memory-region property %d\n",
> - res_mem_count);
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> - rmem = devm_kcalloc(dev, res_mem_count,
> - sizeof(struct reserved_mem *), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!rmem)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < res_mem_count; i++) {
> - rmem_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "memory-region", i);
> - if (!rmem_np)
> - goto release_rmem;
> -
> - rmem[i] = of_reserved_mem_lookup(rmem_np);
> - if (!rmem[i]) {
> - of_node_put(rmem_np);
> - goto release_rmem;
> - }
> -
> - of_node_put(rmem_np);
> - }
> -
> - r5_core->rmem_count = res_mem_count;
> - r5_core->rmem = rmem;
> - return 0;
> -
> -release_rmem:
> - return -EINVAL;
> -}
> -
Why was this moved instead of simply adding a forward declaration at the top of
the file?
> /*
> * zynqmp_r5_core_init()
> * Create and initialize zynqmp_r5_core type object
> @@ -806,10 +1042,6 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_core_init(struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster,
> for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> r5_core = cluster->r5_cores[i];
>
> - ret = zynqmp_r5_get_mem_region_node(r5_core);
> - if (ret)
> - dev_warn(dev, "memory-region prop failed %d\n", ret);
> -
Why doing this since this driver doesn't support attach()/detach() operations
yet?
Thanks,
Mathieu
> /* Initialize r5 cores with power-domains parsed from dts */
> ret = of_property_read_u32_index(r5_core->np, "power-domains",
> 1, &r5_core->pm_domain_id);
>
> base-commit: 10de8156ed71d3dbd7e9099aa76e67ea2c37d4ff
> --
> 2.25.1
>
