Message-ID: <5584203e-cb19-a5d2-45b1-3e78d3482c55@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:07:07 +0100
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, mike.leach@...aro.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module

On 29/03/17 04:07, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:34:57PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 25/03/17 18:23, Leo Yan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Leo,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the quick rework. I don't fully understand (yet!) why we need the
>> idle_constraint. I will leave it for Sudeep to comment on it, as he is the expert
>> in that area. Some minor comments below.
>
> Thanks a lot for quick reviewing :)
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig               |  11 +
>>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Makefile              |   1 +
>>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cpu-debug.c | 704 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 716 insertions(+)
>>> create mode 100644 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-cpu-debug.c
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig
>>> index 130cb21..18d7931 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig
>>> @@ -89,4 +89,15 @@ config CORESIGHT_STM
>>> 	  logging useful software events or data coming from various entities
>>> 	  in the system, possibly running different OSs
>>>
>>> +config CORESIGHT_CPU_DEBUG
>>> +	tristate "CoreSight CPU Debug driver"
>>> +	depends on ARM || ARM64
>>> +	depends on DEBUG_FS
>>> +	help
>>> +	  This driver provides support for coresight debugging module. This
>>> +	  is primarily used to dump sample-based profiling registers when
>>> +	  system triggers panic, the driver will parse context registers so
>>> +	  can quickly get to know program counter (PC), secure state,
>>> +	  exception level, etc.
>>
>> May be we should mention/warn the user about the possible caveats of using
>> this feature to help him make a better decision ? And / Or we should add a documentation
>> for it. We have collected some real good information over the discussions and
>> it is a good idea to capture it somewhere.
>
> Sure, I will add a documentation for this.
>
> [...]
>
>>> +static struct pm_qos_request debug_qos_req;
>>> +static int idle_constraint = PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE;
>>> +module_param(idle_constraint, int, 0600);
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(idle_constraint, "Latency requirement in microseconds for CPU "
>>> +		 "idle states (default is -1, which means have no limiation "
>>> +		 "to CPU idle states; 0 means disabling all idle states; user "
>>> +		 "can choose other platform dependent values so can disable "
>>> +		 "specific idle states for the platform)");
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong,
>>
>> All we want to do is disable the CPUIdle explicitly if the user knows that this
>> could be a problem to use CPU debug on his platform. So, in effect, we should
>> only be using idle_constraint = 0 or -1.
>>
>> In which case, we could make it easier for the user to tell us, either
>>
>>  0 - Don't do anything with CPUIdle (default)
>>  1 - Disable CPUIdle for me as I know the platform has issues with CPU debug and CPUidle.
>
> The reason for not using bool flag is: usually SoC may have many idle
> states, so if user wants to partially enable some states then can set
> the latency to constraint.
>
> But of course, we can change this to binary value as you suggested,
> this means turn on of turn off all states. The only one reason to use
> latency value is it is more friendly for hardware design, e.g. some
> platforms can enable partial states to save power and avoid overheat
> after using this driver.
>
> If you guys think this is a bit over design, I will follow up your
> suggestion. I also have some replying in Mathieu's reviewing, please
> help review as well.
>
>> than explaining the miscrosecond latency etc and make the appropriate calls underneath.
>> something like (not necessarily the same name) :
>>
>> module_param(broken_with_cpuidle, bool, 0600);
>> MODULE_PARAM_DESC(broken_with_cpuidle, "Specifies whether the CPU debug has issues with CPUIdle on"
>> 				       " the platform. Non-zero value implies CPUIdle has to be"
>> 				       " explicitly disabled.",);
>
> [...]
>
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Unfortunately the CPU cannot be powered up, so return
>>> +	 * back and later has no permission to access other
>>> +	 * registers. For this case, should set 'idle_constraint'
>>> +	 * to ensure CPU power domain is enabled!
>>> +	 */
>>> +	if (!(drvdata->edprsr & EDPRSR_PU)) {
>>> +		pr_err("%s: power up request for CPU%d failed\n",
>>> +			__func__, drvdata->cpu);
>>> +		goto out;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +out_powered_up:
>>> +	debug_os_unlock(drvdata);
>>
>> Question: Do we need a matching debug_os_lock() once we are done ?
>
> I have checked ARM ARMv8, but there have no detailed description for
> this. I refered coresight-etmv4 code and Mike's pseudo code, ther have
> no debug_os_lock() related operations.
>
> Mike, Mathieu, could you also help confirm this?
>
> [...]
>
>>> +static void debug_init_arch_data(void *info)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct debug_drvdata *drvdata = info;
>>> +	u32 mode, pcsr_offset;
>>> +
>>> +	CS_UNLOCK(drvdata->base);
>>> +
>>> +	debug_os_unlock(drvdata);
>>> +
>>> +	/* Read device info */
>>> +	drvdata->eddevid  = readl_relaxed(drvdata->base + EDDEVID);
>>> +	drvdata->eddevid1 = readl_relaxed(drvdata->base + EDDEVID1);
>>
>> As mentioned above, both of these registers are only need at init time to
>> figure out the flags we set here. So we could remove them.
>>
>>> +
>>> +	CS_LOCK(drvdata->base);
>>> +
>>> +	/* Parse implementation feature */
>>> +	mode = drvdata->eddevid & EDDEVID_PCSAMPLE_MODE;
>>> +	pcsr_offset = drvdata->eddevid1 & EDDEVID1_PCSR_OFFSET_MASK;
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> +	if (mode == EDDEVID_IMPL_NONE) {
>>> +		drvdata->edpcsr_present  = false;
>>> +		drvdata->edcidsr_present = false;
>>> +		drvdata->edvidsr_present = false;
>>> +	} else if (mode == EDDEVID_IMPL_EDPCSR) {
>>> +		drvdata->edpcsr_present  = true;
>>> +		drvdata->edcidsr_present = false;
>>> +		drvdata->edvidsr_present = false;
>>> +	} else if (mode == EDDEVID_IMPL_EDPCSR_EDCIDSR) {
>>> +		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) &&
>>> +			(pcsr_offset == EDDEVID1_PCSR_NO_OFFSET_DIS_AARCH32))
>>> +			drvdata->edpcsr_present = false;
>>> +		else
>>> +			drvdata->edpcsr_present = true;
>>
>> Sorry, I forgot why we do this check only in this mode. Shouldn't this be
>> common to all modes (of course which implies PCSR is present) ?
>
> No. PCSROffset is defined differently in ARMv7 and ARMv8; So finally we
> simplize PCSROffset value :
> 0000 - Sample offset applies based on the instruction state (indicated by PCSR[0])
> 0001 - No offset applies.
> 0010 - No offset applies, but do not use in AArch32 mode!
>
> So we need handle the corner case is when CPU runs AArch32 mode and
> PCSRoffset = 'b0010. Other cases the pcsr should be present.

I understand that reasoning. But my question is, why do we check for PCSROffset
only when mode == EDDEVID_IMPL_EDPCSR_EDCIDSR and not for say mode == EDDEVID_IMPL_EDPCSR or
any other mode where PCSR is present.

Suzuki

Powered by blists - more mailing lists