Message-ID: <20230302140216.m4m3452vexyrnuln@bogus>
Date:   Thu, 2 Mar 2023 14:02:16 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc:     robbiek@...ghtlabs.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, wanghuiqiang@...wei.com,
        zhangzekun11@...wei.com, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
        tanxiaofei@...wei.com, guohanjun@...wei.com, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, huangdaode@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mailbox: pcc: Support shared interrupt for multiple
 subspaces

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 10:17:07AM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
> 
> 在 2023/3/1 21:36, Sudeep Holla 写道:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:36:53PM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> > > If the platform acknowledge interrupt is level triggered, then it can
> > > be shared by multiple subspaces provided each one has a unique platform
> > > interrupt ack preserve and ack set masks.
> > > 
> > > If it can be shared, then we can request the irq with IRQF_SHARED and
> > > IRQF_ONESHOT flags. The first one indicating it can be shared and the
> > > latter one to keep the interrupt disabled until the hardirq handler
> > > finished.
> > > 
> > > Further, since there is no way to detect if the interrupt is for a given
> > > channel as the interrupt ack preserve and ack set masks are for clearing
> > > the interrupt and not for reading the status(in case Irq Ack register
> > > may be write-only on some platforms), we need a way to identify if the
> > > given channel is in use and expecting the interrupt.
> > > 
> > > PCC type0, type1 and type5 do not support shared level triggered interrupt.
> > > The methods of determining whether a given channel for remaining types
> > > should respond to an interrupt are as follows:
> > >   - type2: Whether the interrupt belongs to a given channel is only
> > >            determined by the status field in Generic Communications Channel
> > >            Shared Memory Region, which is done in rx_callback of PCC client.
> > >   - type3: This channel checks chan_in_use flag first and then checks the
> > >            command complete bit(value '1' indicates that the command has
> > >            been completed).
> > >   - type4: Platform ensure that the default value of the command complete
> > >            bit corresponding to the type4 channel is '1'. This command
> > >            complete bit is '0' when receive a platform notification.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >   1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c
> > > index ecd54f049de3..04c2d73a0473 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c
> > > @@ -92,6 +92,10 @@ struct pcc_chan_reg {
> > >    * @error: PCC register bundle for the error status register
> > >    * @plat_irq: platform interrupt
> > >    * @type: PCC subspace type
> > > + * @plat_irq_flags: platform interrupt flags
> > > + * @chan_in_use: flag indicating whether the channel is in use or not when use
> > > + *		platform interrupt, and only use it for communication from OSPM
> > > + *		to Platform, like type 3.
> > Also add a node that since only one transfer can occur at a time and the
> > mailbox takes care of locking, this flag needs no locking and is used just
> > to check if the interrupt needs handling when it is shared.
> Add a per-channel lock. Is this your mean?

No. I meant a comment saying it is not need since only one transfer can occur
at a time and mailbox takes care of locking. So chan_in_use can be accessed
without a lock.

> > 
> > >    */
> > >   struct pcc_chan_info {
> > >   	struct pcc_mbox_chan chan;
> > > @@ -102,6 +106,8 @@ struct pcc_chan_info {
> > >   	struct pcc_chan_reg error;
> > >   	int plat_irq;
> > >   	u8 type;
> > > +	unsigned int plat_irq_flags;
> > > +	bool chan_in_use;
> > >   };
> > >   #define to_pcc_chan_info(c) container_of(c, struct pcc_chan_info, chan)
> > > @@ -225,6 +231,12 @@ static int pcc_map_interrupt(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
> > >   	return acpi_register_gsi(NULL, interrupt, trigger, polarity);
> > >   }
> > > +static bool pcc_chan_plat_irq_can_be_shared(struct pcc_chan_info *pchan)
> > > +{
> > > +	return (pchan->plat_irq_flags & ACPI_PCCT_INTERRUPT_MODE) ==
> > > +		ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >   static bool pcc_chan_command_complete(struct pcc_chan_info *pchan,
> > >   				      u64 cmd_complete_reg_val)
> > >   {
> > > @@ -277,6 +289,9 @@ static irqreturn_t pcc_mbox_irq(int irq, void *p)
> > >   	int ret;
> > >   	pchan = chan->con_priv;
> > > +	if (pchan->type == ACPI_PCCT_TYPE_EXT_PCC_MASTER_SUBSPACE &&
> > > +	    !pchan->chan_in_use)
> > > +		return IRQ_NONE;
> > >   	ret = pcc_chan_reg_read(&pchan->cmd_complete, &val);
> > >   	if (ret)
> > > @@ -302,9 +317,13 @@ static irqreturn_t pcc_mbox_irq(int irq, void *p)
> > >   	/*
> > >   	 * The PCC slave subspace channel needs to set the command complete bit
> > >   	 * and ring doorbell after processing message.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * The PCC master subspace channel clears chan_in_use to free channel.
> > >   	 */
> > >   	if (pchan->type == ACPI_PCCT_TYPE_EXT_PCC_SLAVE_SUBSPACE)
> > >   		pcc_send_data(chan, NULL);
> > > +	else if (pchan->type == ACPI_PCCT_TYPE_EXT_PCC_MASTER_SUBSPACE)
> > > +		pchan->chan_in_use = false;
> > Just wondering if this has to be for type 3 only. I am trying to avoid
> > conditional update of this flag, can we not do it for everything except type4 ?
> > (I mean just in unconditional else part)
> But type2 do not need this flag.

Yes

> For types no need this flag, it is always hard to understand and redundant
> design.

But does it matter ? You can even support shared interrupt for type 1&2.
They support level interrupt, so we can add them too. I understand you can
test only type 3, but this driver caters for all and the code must be generic
as much as possible. I don't see any point in check for type 3 only. Only
type 4 is slave and operates quite opposite compared to other types and makes
sense to handle it differently.

> If no this condition, we don't know what is the impact on the furture types.

We can add/extend the check if necessary while adding the support for that
in the future.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists