linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] interconnect: qcom: rpm: Always set QoS params on QNoC

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]

Message-ID: <8673ef49-a37e-2d76-b800-bf9b10875006@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 21:36:35 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        agross@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org
Cc:     marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org,
        Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <kholk11@...il.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] interconnect: qcom: rpm: Always set QoS params on
 QNoC



On 16.01.2023 14:21, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On newer SoCs, QoS parameters and RPM bandwidth requests are wholly
> separate. Setting one should only depend on the description of the
> interconnect node and not whether the other is present. If we don't
> vote through RPM, QoS parameters should be set regardless, as we're
> requesting additional bandwidth by setting the interconnect clock
> rates.
> 
> With NoC (the old-SoC bus type), this is not the case and they are
> mutually exclusive (so, the current upstream logic is correct).
> 
> For BIMC however, newer SoCs expect QoS params to be always set
> (like QNoC) whereas older ones (like MSM8998) hang up completely when
> doing so, hence this will be addressed in the next commit.
> 
> The Fixes tag references the commit in which this logic was added, it
> has since been shuffled around to a different file, but it's the one
> where it originates from.
> 
> Fixes: f80a1d414328 ("interconnect: qcom: Add SDM660 interconnect provider driver")
> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
> ---
Would be very nice if somebody could test this one in particular
on QCM2290 to make sure it does not regress that SoC..

Shawn, Loic?

Konrad
>  drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c b/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
> index 385a67c20956..b1337f90c975 100644
> --- a/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/interconnect/qcom/icc-rpm.c
> @@ -239,15 +239,27 @@ static int qcom_icc_rpm_set(int mas_rpm_id, int slv_rpm_id, u64 sum_bw)
>  static int __qcom_icc_set(struct icc_node *n, struct qcom_icc_node *qn,
>  			  u64 sum_bw)
>  {
> +	struct qcom_icc_provider *qp = to_qcom_provider(n->provider);
> +	bool vote_ap, vote_rpm;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	if (!qn->qos.ap_owned) {
> -		/* send bandwidth request message to the RPM processor */
> +	if (qp->type == QCOM_ICC_QNOC) {
> +		vote_ap = true;
> +		vote_rpm = true;
> +	} else {
> +		vote_ap = qn->qos.ap_owned;
> +		vote_rpm = !vote_ap;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (vote_rpm) {
> +		/* Send bandwidth request message to the RPM processor */
>  		ret = qcom_icc_rpm_set(qn->mas_rpm_id, qn->slv_rpm_id, sum_bw);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
> -	} else if (qn->qos.qos_mode != -1) {
> -		/* set bandwidth directly from the AP */
> +	}
> +
> +	if (vote_ap && qn->qos.qos_mode != NOC_QOS_MODE_INVALID) {
> +		/* Set QoS params from the AP */
>  		ret = qcom_icc_qos_set(n, sum_bw);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;