| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1574420151.19130.196.camel@mhfsdcap03>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:55:51 +0800
From: Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>
To: Ming-Fan Chen <ming-fan.chen@...iatek.com>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
<wsd_upstream@...iatek.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] memory: mtk-smi: Add bandwidth initial golden
setting for MT6779
On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 11:39 +0800, Ming-Fan Chen wrote:
> SMI bandwidth initial golden setting for MT6779 make sure
> better performance of memory control for multimedia modules.
I think this patch should be splitted to two, one adds the basic mt6779
support and config_port which should be a part of IOMMU. the other adds
the bandwidth control support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ming-Fan Chen <ming-fan.chen@...iatek.com>
> ---
> drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 139 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> index 439d7d8..f3618d0 100644
> --- a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> +++ b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> @@ -41,21 +41,50 @@
> #define SMI_LARB_NONSEC_CON(id) (0x380 + ((id) * 4))
> #define F_MMU_EN BIT(0)
>
> +#define SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON 0x24
> +#define SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG 0x40
> +#define SMI_LARB_WRR_PORT 0x100
> +#define SMI_LARB_WRR_PORTx(id) (SMI_LARB_WRR_PORT + (((id) & 0x1f) << 2))
The two WRR are not used. Remove.
> +#define SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORT 0x200
> +#define SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORTx(id) (SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORT + (((id) & 0x1f) << 2))
> +
> /* SMI COMMON */
> +#define SMI_L1LEN 0x100
> +#define SMI_L1ARB0 0x104
> +#define SMI_L1ARB(id) (SMI_L1ARB0 + (((id) & 0x7) << 2))
> +
> #define SMI_BUS_SEL 0x220
> #define SMI_BUS_LARB_SHIFT(larbid) ((larbid) << 1)
> /* All are MMU0 defaultly. Only specialize mmu1 here. */
> #define F_MMU1_LARB(larbid) (0x1 << SMI_BUS_LARB_SHIFT(larbid))
>
> +#define SMI_M4U_TH 0x234
> +#define SMI_FIFO_TH1 0x238
> +#define SMI_FIFO_TH2 0x23c
> +#define SMI_DCM 0x300
> +#define SMI_DUMMY 0x444
> +
> +#define SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX 32
> +#define SMI_COMMON_LARB_NR_MAX 8
> +#define SMI_LARB_MISC_NR 2
> +#define SMI_COMMON_MISC_NR 6
> +
> enum mtk_smi_gen {
> MTK_SMI_GEN1,
> MTK_SMI_GEN2
> };
>
> +struct mtk_smi_reg_pair {
> + u16 offset;
> + u32 value;
> +};
> +
> struct mtk_smi_common_plat {
> enum mtk_smi_gen gen;
> bool has_gals;
> u32 bus_sel; /* Balance some larbs to enter mmu0 or mmu1 */
> + u16 *bwl;
> + struct mtk_smi_reg_pair *misc;
> };
>
> struct mtk_smi_larb_gen {
> @@ -63,6 +92,8 @@ struct mtk_smi_larb_gen {
> void (*config_port)(struct device *);
> unsigned int larb_direct_to_common_mask;
> bool has_gals;
> + u8 *bwl;
Below you assign mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_bwl to this, it is:
static u8 mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_bwl[MTK_LARB_NR_MAX][SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX]
then, is "u8 **" better?
> + struct mtk_smi_reg_pair *misc;
ditto, use **?
> };
>
> struct mtk_smi {
> @@ -160,7 +191,7 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct mtk_smi_larb *larb = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> u32 reg;
> - int i;
> + int i, id;
>
> if (BIT(larb->larbid) & larb->larb_gen->larb_direct_to_common_mask)
> return;
> @@ -170,6 +201,20 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general(struct device *dev)
> reg |= F_MMU_EN;
> writel(reg, larb->base + SMI_LARB_NONSEC_CON(i));
> }
> +
> + if (larb->larb_gen->bwl)
> + for (i = 0; i < larb->larb_gen->port_in_larb[larb->larbid]; i++)
> + writel_relaxed(larb->larb_gen->bwl[larb->larbid *
> + SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX + i],
> + larb->base + SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORTx(i));
From this register name, I guess the name "bwl"(bandwidth limiter?) is
not so good. Maybe it should be called by "osdl". At least, you should
add a comment for this. like : u8 *bwl; /* for OSDL */
As below comment, If we don't have port_in_larb, always use 32 here, is
it OK? (writing 0 for the non-exist port).
> +
> + if (larb->larb_gen->misc)
> + for (i = 0, id = larb->larbid * SMI_LARB_MISC_NR;
> + i < SMI_LARB_MISC_NR; i++, id++)
> + writel_relaxed(larb->larb_gen->misc[id].value,
> + larb->base +
> + larb->larb_gen->misc[id].offset);
There are 3 intention, It's not easy to read. A not-strong suggestion:
we could add a new variable like has_bwc for mt6779 which have this
bandwidth initial setting. And use "u8 **" for bwl. then the code will
be like below:
struct mtk_smi_reg_pair *misc;
u8 *bwl;
if (!larb->larb_gen->has_bwc)
return;
for (i = 0, bwl = larb->larb_gen->bwl[larb->larbid];
i < larb->larb_gen->port_in_larb[larb->larbid]; i++)
writel_relaxed(bwl[i], larb->base + SMI_LARB_OSTDL_PORTx(i));
for (i = 0,misc =larb->larb_gen->misc[larb->larbid];
i < SMI_LARB_MISC_NR; i++)
writel_relaxed(misc[i].value, larb->base + misc[i].offset);
the writel_relaxed can be finished in one line.
> + wmb(); /* make sure settings are written */
> }
>
> static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_mt8173(struct device *dev)
> @@ -246,6 +291,55 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen1(struct device *dev)
> /* IPU0 | IPU1 | CCU */
> };
>
> +static u8 mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_bwl[MTK_LARB_NR_MAX][SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX] = {
Add const.
Here the larb number in this SoC isn't MTK_LARB_NR_MAX(16). May be you
could use:
static const u8 mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_bwl[][SMI_LARB_PORT_NR_MAX]
> + {0x28, 0x28, 0x01, 0x28, 0x01, 0x01, 0x0a, 0x0a, 0x28,},
> + {0x28, 0x01, 0x28, 0x28, 0x0a, 0x01, 0x01, 0x0d, 0x0d, 0x07,
> + 0x01, 0x07, 0x01, 0x28,},
> + {0x18, 0x01, 0x08, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x02,
> + 0x01, 0x01},
> + {0x01, 0x03, 0x02, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x04, 0x02, 0x01,
> + 0x04, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x04, 0x0b, 0x13, 0x14,},
> + {},
> + {0x13, 0x0f, 0x0d, 0x07, 0x07, 0x04, 0x03, 0x01, 0x03, 0x01,
> + 0x05, 0x0c, 0x01, 0x01, 0x08, 0x06, 0x02, 0x01, 0x08, 0x08,
> + 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01,},
> + {0x01, 0x01, 0x01,},
> + {0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01,},
> + {0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01,},
> + {0x1f, 0x1a, 0x02, 0x04, 0x1f, 0x02, 0x14, 0x01, 0x1f, 0x04,
> + 0x04, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x02, 0x02, 0x04, 0x02, 0x01, 0x02,
> + 0x04, 0x02, 0x02, 0x01,},
> + {0x1f, 0x1a, 0x02, 0x04, 0x1f, 0x02, 0x14, 0x01, 0x1f, 0x1a,
> + 0x02, 0x04, 0x1f, 0x02, 0x14, 0x01, 0x01, 0x02, 0x02, 0x04,
> + 0x02, 0x0a, 0x02, 0x02, 0x04, 0x02, 0x0a, 0x02, 0x04, 0x02, 0x04,},
> + {0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01, 0x01,},
> +};
> +
> +static struct mtk_smi_reg_pair
const
> + mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_misc[MTK_LARB_NR_MAX][SMI_LARB_MISC_NR] = {
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x370256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x300256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x370256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x300256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x300256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x300256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x300256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x370256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x370256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> + {{SMI_LARB_CMD_THRT_CON, 0x370256}, {SMI_LARB_SW_FLAG, 0x1},},
> +};
> +
> +static const struct mtk_smi_larb_gen mtk_smi_larb_mt6779 = {
Move the mt6779 definition before mt8183.
> + .port_in_larb = {9, 14, 12, 19, 0, 26, 3, 4, 10, 24, 31, 5,},
In mt2701, port_in_larb[n] is port_offset[n-1] + port_number[n-1].
It is not same with yours.
Maybe your definition is better, But If you change it, please also
change the mt2701. Make sure the meaning of port_in_larb are the same.
> + .config_port = mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general,
> + .larb_direct_to_common_mask =
> + BIT(4) | BIT(6) | BIT(11) | BIT(12) | BIT(13),
> + /* DUMMY | IPU0 | IPU1 | CCU | MDLA */
> + .bwl = (u8 *)mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_bwl,
As above, here should be (u8 **).
> + .misc = (struct mtk_smi_reg_pair *)mtk_smi_larb_mt6779_misc,
> +};
> +
> static const struct of_device_id mtk_smi_larb_of_ids[] = {
> {
> .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smi-larb",
> @@ -260,6 +354,10 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen1(struct device *dev)
> .data = &mtk_smi_larb_mt2712
> },
> {
> + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6779-smi-larb",
> + .data = &mtk_smi_larb_mt6779
> + },
> + {
> .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-smi-larb",
> .data = &mtk_smi_larb_mt8183
> },
> @@ -393,6 +491,29 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_smi_larb_suspend(struct device *dev)
> F_MMU1_LARB(7),
> };
>
> +static u16 mtk_smi_common_mt6779_bwl[SMI_COMMON_LARB_NR_MAX] = {
const.
This bwl smi-common setting always have 8 register? Will it be changed?
How about below?:
static u16 mtk_smi_common_mt6779_bwl[] = {
Add a new variable in struct mtk_smi_common_plat.
larb_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_smi_common_mt6779_bwl)
> + 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000, 0x1000,
> +};
> +
> +static struct mtk_smi_reg_pair
const
> + mtk_smi_common_mt6779_misc[SMI_COMMON_MISC_NR] = {
The tab in this line is unnecessary.
> + {SMI_L1LEN, 0xb},
> + {SMI_M4U_TH, 0xe100e10},
> + {SMI_FIFO_TH1, 0x506090a},
> + {SMI_FIFO_TH2, 0x506090a},
> + {SMI_DCM, 0x4f1},
> + {SMI_DUMMY, 0x1},
Do all the settings above(including smi-larb) may be changed dynamically
in different scenario? or all the setting only be set once?
> +};
> +
> +static const struct mtk_smi_common_plat mtk_smi_common_mt6779 = {
ditto. Move the mt6779 definition before mt8183.
> + .gen = MTK_SMI_GEN2,
> + .has_gals = true,
If you also have has_gals, Please update the binding.
> + .bus_sel = F_MMU1_LARB(1) | F_MMU1_LARB(2) | F_MMU1_LARB(4) |
> + F_MMU1_LARB(5) | F_MMU1_LARB(6) | F_MMU1_LARB(7),
> + .bwl = mtk_smi_common_mt6779_bwl,
> + .misc = mtk_smi_common_mt6779_misc,
> +};
> +
> static const struct of_device_id mtk_smi_common_of_ids[] = {
> {
> .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smi-common",
> @@ -407,6 +528,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_smi_larb_suspend(struct device *dev)
> .data = &mtk_smi_common_gen2,
> },
> {
> + .compatible = "mediatek,mt6779-smi-common",
> + .data = &mtk_smi_common_mt6779,
> + },
> + {
> .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-smi-common",
> .data = &mtk_smi_common_mt8183,
> },
> @@ -484,7 +609,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_smi_common_resume(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct mtk_smi *common = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> u32 bus_sel = common->plat->bus_sel;
> - int ret;
> + int i, ret;
>
> ret = mtk_smi_clk_enable(common);
> if (ret) {
> @@ -494,6 +619,18 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_smi_common_resume(struct device *dev)
>
> if (common->plat->gen == MTK_SMI_GEN2 && bus_sel)
> writel(bus_sel, common->base + SMI_BUS_SEL);
SMI_BUS_SEL looks can be a register in your common->plat->misc.
This should be done in another patch.
> +
> + if (common->plat->bwl)
> + for (i = 0; i < SMI_COMMON_LARB_NR_MAX; i++)
> + writel_relaxed(common->plat->bwl[i],
> + common->base + SMI_L1ARB(i));
From the register name, the "bwl" also is not so good. add a comment or
rename it like "l1arb"?
> +
> + if (common->plat->misc)
> + for (i = 0; i < SMI_COMMON_MISC_NR; i++)
> + writel_relaxed(common->plat->misc[i].value,
> + common->base +
> + common->plat->misc[i].offset);
> + wmb(); /* make sure settings are written */
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists