On 2/23/23 15:47, Tanmay Shah wrote:
On 2/23/23 1:40 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
On 2/22/23 18:34, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 01:18:24PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
As of now only one child node is handled by zynqmp-ipi
mailbox driver. Upon introducing remoteproc r5 core mailbox
nodes, found few enhancements in Xilinx zynqmp mailbox driver
as following:
- fix mailbox child node counts
If child mailbox node status is disabled it causes
crash in interrupt handler. Fix this by assigning
only available child node during driver probe.
- fix typo in IPI documentation %s/12/32/
Xilinx IPI message buffers allows 32-byte data transfer.
Fix documentation that says 12 bytes
- fix bug in zynqmp-ipi isr handling
Multiple IPI channels are mapped to same interrupt handler.
Current isr implementation handles only one channel per isr.
Fix this behavior by checking isr status bit of all child
mailbox nodes.
Fixes: 4981b82ba2ff ("mailbox: ZynqMP IPI mailbox controller")
Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
---
Changelog:
- This is first version of this change, however posting as part of the
series
that has version v3.
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230126213154.1707300-1-tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx/
drivers/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-mailbox.c | 8 ++++----
include/linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-mailbox.c
b/drivers/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-mailbox.c
index 12e004ff1a14..b1498f6f06e1 100644
--- a/drivers/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-mailbox.c
+++ b/drivers/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-mailbox.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static irqreturn_t zynqmp_ipi_interrupt(int irq, void
*data)
struct zynqmp_ipi_message *msg;
u64 arg0, arg3;
struct arm_smccc_res res;
- int ret, i;
+ int ret, i, status = IRQ_NONE;
(void)irq;
arg0 = SMC_IPI_MAILBOX_STATUS_ENQUIRY;
@@ -170,11 +170,11 @@ static irqreturn_t zynqmp_ipi_interrupt(int irq, void
*data)
memcpy_fromio(msg->data, mchan->req_buf,
msg->len);
mbox_chan_received_data(chan, (void *)msg);
- return IRQ_HANDLED;
+ status = IRQ_HANDLED;
}
}
}
- return IRQ_NONE;
+ return status;
}
/**
@@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ static int zynqmp_ipi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct zynqmp_ipi_mbox *mbox;
int num_mboxes, ret = -EINVAL;
- num_mboxes = of_get_child_count(np);
+ num_mboxes = of_get_available_child_count(np);
pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata) + (num_mboxes * sizeof(*mbox)),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!pdata)
diff --git a/include/linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h
b/include/linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h
index 35ce84c8ca02..31d8046d945e 100644
--- a/include/linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h
+++ b/include/linux/mailbox/zynqmp-ipi-message.h
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
* @data: message payload
*
* This is the structure for data used in mbox_send_message
- * the maximum length of data buffer is fixed to 12 bytes.
+ * the maximum length of data buffer is fixed to 32 bytes.
* Client is supposed to be aware of this.
I agree that this should be split in 3 patches but the fixes are so small that
it is hardly required. I'll leave it up to Michal to decide.
Generic guidance is saying that you should split that patches. I personally
prefer to have one patch per change. It is useful for bisecting and faster for
reviewing.
I would expect that this patch should go via mailbox tree and the rest via
remoteproc tree. That's why maintainer should say what it is preferred way.
Thanks Michal for reviews. I will split the patch in three different patches.
In connection mailbox. I recently had some time to look at this driver and I
didn't really get why there are registers listed. Because all that addresses
can be calculated based on soc compatible string and by xlnx,ipi-id for both
sides.
Yes the IPI configuration register addresses are retrieved from TF-A in
zynqmp-ipi-driver using xlnx,ipi-id property.
Other than that there are message buffers provided in hardware for IPI
communication. We list those message buffer addresses
using reg addresses and they are expected in dts. As per bindings we do not map
message buffers to IPI ID.
I am not sure which register listing you are referring to ?
Based on
https://docs.xilinx.com/r/en-US/am011-versal-acap-trm/Message-Buffer
xlnx,ipi-id = 2 (versal case) APU
pmu1 has xlnx,ipi-id = 1; PMC
Base on versal is 0xFF3F0000
Local buffers for sending from 2 -> 1
Buffer 2 starts at offset 0x400
Order in destination is PSM, PMC, IPI0... where you have request 32B and
response 32B too.
It means 2->1 - target is PMC
that means 0x40 for request 0x60 for response.
When this is put together
0xff3f0000 + 0x400 + 0x40 = ff3f0440 - local request
0xff3f0000 + 0x400 + 0x60 = ff3f0460 - local response
For the way back from 1->2
Buffer one starts at 0x200
I want to send it to APU which we use channel 2 for.
Channel 2 start at ID * 0x40 = 0x80 is for request
0x80 + 32 = 0xa0 for response
It means 2->1 - target is APU at ID 2
0xff3f0000 + 0x200 + 0x80 = ff3f0280 - remote request
0xff3f0000 + 0x200 + 0xa0 = ff3f02a0 - remote response
Based on this you see that reg/reg names property are pretty much useless and
should be removed from dt binding document because simply base and source ipi-id
and destination ipi-id will tell you which addresses should be used.
As far as I know ZynqMP is using the same logic. The only difference is really
just different base address for buffers.
That's why I think the DT node should be just like this and all addresses
Versal
versal_ipi {
compatible = "xlnx,versal-ipi-mailbox";
interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
interrupts = <0 30 4>;
xlnx,ipi-id = <2>;
ipi_mailbox_pmu1: mailbox {
#mbox-cells = <1>;
xlnx,ipi-id = <1>;
};
};
Where different compatible string will ensure that base address is assigned
based on SOC.
Thanks,
Michal
