Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 08:48:44 +0000
From:   Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@...com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC:     Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks


On 01/08/2019 9:14 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 13 Mar 08:50 PDT 2019, Fabien Dessenne wrote:
>
>> The current implementation does not allow two different devices to use
>> a common hwspinlock. This patch set proposes to have, as an option, some
>> hwspinlocks shared between several users.
>>
>> Below is an example that explain the need for this:
>> 	exti: interrupt-controller@...0d000 {
>> 		compatible = "st,stm32mp1-exti", "syscon";
>> 		interrupt-controller;
>> 		#interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> 		reg = <0x5000d000 0x400>;
>> 		hwlocks = <&hsem 1>;
>> 	};
>> The two drivers (stm32mp1-exti and syscon) refer to the same hwlock.
>> With the current hwspinlock implementation, only the first driver succeeds
>> in requesting (hwspin_lock_request_specific) the hwlock. The second request
>> fails.
>>
>>
>> The proposed approach does not modify the API, but extends the DT 'hwlocks'
>> property with a second optional parameter (the first one identifies an
>> hwlock) that specifies whether an hwlock is requested for exclusive usage
>> (current behavior) or can be shared between several users.
>> Examples:
>> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive usage
>> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8 0>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for exclusive (0) usage
>> 	hwlocks = <&hsem 8 1>;	Ref to hwlock #8 for shared (1) usage
>>
>> As a constraint, the #hwlock-cells value must be 1 or 2.
>> In the current implementation, this can have theorically any value but:
>> - all of the exisiting drivers use the same value : 1.
>> - the framework supports only one value : 1 (see implementation of
>>    of_hwspin_lock_simple_xlate())
>> Hence, it shall not be a problem to restrict this value to 1 or 2 since
>> it won't break any driver.
>>
> Hi Fabien,
>
> Your series looks good, but it makes me wonder why the hardware locks
> should be an exclusive resource.
>
> How about just making all (specific) locks shared?

Hi Bjorn,

Making all locks shared is a possible implementation (my first 
implementation
was going this way) but there are some drawbacks we must be aware of:

A/ This theoretically break the legacy behavior (the legacy works with
exclusive (UNUSED radix tag) usage). As a consequence, an existing driver
that is currently failing to request a lock (already claimed by another
user) would now work fine. Not sure that there are such drivers, so this
point is probably not a real issue.

B/ This would introduce some inconsistency between the two 'request' API
which are hwspin_lock_request() and hwspin_lock_request_specific().
hwspin_lock_request() looks for an unused lock, so requests for an exclusive
usage. On the other side, request_specific() would request shared locks.
Worst the following sequence can transform an exclusive usage into a shared

one:
   -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#0 (exclusive)
   -hwspin_lock_request() -> returns Id#1 (exclusive)
   -hwspin_lock_request_specific(0) -> returns Id#0 and makes Id#0 shared
Honestly I am not sure that this is a real issue, but it's better to have it
in mind before we take ay decision
I could not find any driver using the hwspin_lock_request() API, we may 
decide
to remove (or to make deprecated) this API, having everything 'shared 
without
any conditions'.


I can see three options:
1- Keep my initial proposition
2- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
    hwspin_lock_request() using unused (so 'initially' exclusive) locks.
3- Have hwspin_lock_request_specific() using shared locks and
    remove/make deprecated hwspin_lock_request().

Just let me know what is your preference.

BR

Fabien

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> Fabien Dessenne (6):
>>    dt-bindings: hwlock: add support of shared locks
>>    hwspinlock: allow sharing of hwspinlocks
>>    dt-bindings: hwlock: update STM32 #hwlock-cells value
>>    ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwspinlock node for stm32mp157 SoC
>>    ARM: dts: stm32: Add hwlock for irqchip on stm32mp157
>>    ARM: dts: stm32: hwlocks for GPIO for stm32mp157
>>
>>   .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/hwlock.txt          | 27 +++++--
>>   .../bindings/hwlock/st,stm32-hwspinlock.txt        |  6 +-
>>   Documentation/hwspinlock.txt                       | 10 ++-
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157-pinctrl.dtsi          |  2 +
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp157c.dtsi                 | 10 +++
>>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_core.c               | 82 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>   drivers/hwspinlock/hwspinlock_internal.h           |  2 +
>>   7 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> -- 
>> 2.7.4
>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists