lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:32:45 +0100
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	"ks.giri@...sung.com" <ks.giri@...sung.com>,
	"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
	"ijc@...lion.org.uk" <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	"courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com" <courtney.cavin@...ymobile.com>,
	"mporter@...aro.org" <mporter@...aro.org>,
	"slapdau@...oo.com.au" <slapdau@...oo.com.au>,
	"lftan.linux@...il.com" <lftan.linux@...il.com>,
	"loic.pallardy@...com" <loic.pallardy@...com>,
	"s-anna@...com" <s-anna@...com>,
	"ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org" <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
	"bjorn@...o.se" <bjorn@...o.se>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	"t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com" <t.takinishi@...fujitsu.com>,
	"broonie@...aro.org" <broonie@...aro.org>,
	"khilman@...aro.org" <khilman@...aro.org>,
	"mollie.wu@...aro.org" <mollie.wu@...aro.org>,
	"andy.green@...aro.org" <andy.green@...aro.org>,
	"lee.jones@...aro.org" <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 2/4] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox



On 22/07/14 19:56, Jassi Brar wrote:
> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and
> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC).
>
> Client driver developers should have a look at
>   include/linux/mailbox_client.h to understand the part of
> the API exposed to client drivers.
> Similarly controller driver developers should have a look
> at include/linux/mailbox_controller.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
> ---
>   MAINTAINERS                        |   8 +
>   drivers/mailbox/Makefile           |   4 +
>   drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c          | 467 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   include/linux/mailbox_client.h     |  45 ++++
>   include/linux/mailbox_controller.h | 131 +++++++++++
>   5 files changed, 655 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox_client.h
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/mailbox_controller.h
>

[...]

> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..99c0d23
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,467 @@
> +/*
> + * Mailbox: Common code for Mailbox controllers and users
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2013-2014 Linaro Ltd.
> + * Author: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_client.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +
> +#define TXDONE_BY_IRQ  (1 << 0) /* controller has remote RTR irq */
> +#define TXDONE_BY_POLL (1 << 1) /* controller can read status of last TX */
> +#define TXDONE_BY_ACK  (1 << 2) /* S/W ACK recevied by Client ticks the TX */
> +
> +static LIST_HEAD(mbox_cons);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(con_mutex);
> +
> +static int add_to_rbuf(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *mssg)
> +{
> +       int idx;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);
> +
> +       /* See if there is any space left */
> +       if (chan->msg_count == MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN) {
> +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +       }
> +
> +       idx = chan->msg_free;
> +       chan->msg_data[idx] = mssg;
> +       chan->msg_count++;
> +
> +       if (idx == MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN - 1)
> +               chan->msg_free = 0;
> +       else
> +               chan->msg_free++;
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +
> +       return idx;
> +}
> +
> +static void msg_submit(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +       unsigned count, idx;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +       void *data;
> +       int err;
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);
> +
> +       if (!chan->msg_count || chan->active_req) {
> +               spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +               return;
> +       }
> +
> +       count = chan->msg_count;
> +       idx = chan->msg_free;
> +       if (idx >= count)
> +               idx -= count;
> +       else
> +               idx += MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN - count;
> +
> +       data = chan->msg_data[idx];
> +
> +       /* Try to submit a message to the MBOX controller */
> +       err = chan->mbox->ops->send_data(chan, data);

Probably this is discussed already, but again I missed to find it
in archives, so asking here. If the protocol has some payload associated
with the message and controller expects it to be in place before calling
send_data, we essentially end up not using this queue at all by waiting
in the protocol layer(may be in it's own queue)

Instead can we have some kind of chan->cl->prepare_data callback so that
client can prepare payload ? This in turn avoids to implement it's
*own Tx queue* and *reusing the mailbox queue*.

Or am I missing something ?

> +       if (!err) {
> +               chan->active_req = data;
> +               chan->msg_count--;
> +       }
> +
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> +static void tx_tick(struct mbox_chan *chan, int r)
> +{
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +       void *mssg;
> +
> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);
> +       mssg = chan->active_req;
> +       chan->active_req = NULL;
> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +
> +       /* Submit next message */
> +       msg_submit(chan);
> +
> +       /* Notify the client */
> +       if (mssg && chan->cl->tx_done)
> +               chan->cl->tx_done(chan->cl, mssg, r);
> +
> +       if (chan->cl->tx_block)
> +               complete(&chan->tx_complete);
> +}
> +
> +static void poll_txdone(unsigned long data)
> +{
> +       struct mbox_controller *mbox = (struct mbox_controller *)data;
> +       bool txdone, resched = false;
> +       int i;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) {
> +               struct mbox_chan *chan = &mbox->chans[i];
> +
> +               if (chan->active_req && chan->cl) {
> +                       resched = true;
> +                       txdone = chan->mbox->ops->last_tx_done(chan);
> +                       if (txdone)
> +                               tx_tick(chan, 0);

What if all the active channels finished Tx(i.e. txdone = 1), we still have
resched = true and add a timer, not really harmful though. But IMO you can
move it to else part instead ?


Regards,
Sudeep


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ