Message-ID: <1d3f99dd5b3a013a3dfeb25a31057b66286de703.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:49:37 +0000
From: Olivia Wen (温倩苓) <Olivia.Wen@...iatek.com>
To: "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "mathieu.poirier@...aro.org"
	<mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>, "angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, "andersson@...nel.org"
	<andersson@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jason-ch Chen (陳建豪)
	<Jason-ch.Chen@...iatek.com>, Yaya Chang (張雅清)
	<Yaya.Chang@...iatek.com>, "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group
	<Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com>,
	Teddy Chen (陳乾元) <Teddy.Chen@...iatek.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "matthias.bgg@...il.com"
	<matthias.bgg@...il.com>, "krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	TingHan Shen (沈廷翰) <TingHan.Shen@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mediatek: Support MT8188 SCP core 1

Hi AngeloGioacchino,

Thanks for the reviews.

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 09:33 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 11/04/24 05:37, olivia.wen ha scritto:
> > To Support MT8188 SCP core 1 for ISP driver.
> > The SCP on different chips will require different code sizes
> >   and IPI buffer sizes based on varying requirements.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: olivia.wen <olivia.wen@...iatek.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h    |  5 +--
> >   drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c       | 62
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >   drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c   |  9 ++++--
> >   include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h |  1 +
> >   4 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > index 6d7736a..8f37f65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@
> >   #define MT8195_L2TCM_OFFSET			0x850d0
> >   
> >   #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN			32
> > -#define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE		288
> >   
> >   struct scp_run {
> >   	u32 signaled;
> > @@ -110,6 +109,8 @@ struct mtk_scp_of_data {
> >   	u32 host_to_scp_int_bit;
> >   
> >   	size_t ipi_buf_offset;
> > +	u32 ipi_buffer_size;
> 
> this should be `ipi_share_buf_size`
> 
> > +	u32 max_code_size;
> 
> max_code_size should probably be dram_code_size or max_dram_size or
> dram_size.
> 
> Also, both should be size_t, not u32.
> 

It will be fixed in the next version.


> >   };
> >   
> >   struct mtk_scp_of_cluster {
> > @@ -162,7 +163,7 @@ struct mtk_scp {
> >   struct mtk_share_obj {
> >   	u32 id;
> >   	u32 len;
> > -	u8 share_buf[SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE];
> > +	u8 *share_buf;
> >   };
> >   
> >   void scp_memcpy_aligned(void __iomem *dst, const void *src,
> > unsigned int len);
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > index 6751829..270718d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@
> >   #include "mtk_common.h"
> >   #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> >   
> > -#define MAX_CODE_SIZE 0x500000
> >   #define SECTION_NAME_IPI_BUFFER ".ipi_buffer"
> >   
> >   /**
> > @@ -94,14 +93,14 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> >   {
> >   	struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *rcv_obj = scp->recv_buf;
> >   	struct scp_ipi_desc *ipi_desc = scp->ipi_desc;
> > -	u8 tmp_data[SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE];
> > +	u8 *tmp_data;
> >   	scp_ipi_handler_t handler;
> >   	u32 id = readl(&rcv_obj->id);
> >   	u32 len = readl(&rcv_obj->len);
> >   
> > -	if (len > SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE) {
> > +	if (len > scp->data->ipi_buffer_size) {
> >   		dev_err(scp->dev, "ipi message too long (len %d, max
> > %d)", len,
> > -			SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE);
> > +			scp->data->ipi_buffer_size);
> >   		return;
> >   	}
> >   	if (id >= SCP_IPI_MAX) {
> > @@ -109,6 +108,10 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> >   		return;
> >   	}
> >   
> > +	tmp_data = kzalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> I think that this will be impacting on performance a bit, especially
> if
> the scp_ipi_handler gets called frequently (and also remember that
> this
> is in interrupt context).
> 
> For best performance, you should allocate this at probe time (in
> struct mtk_scp
> or somewhere else), then:
> 
> len = ipi message length
> memset zero the tmp_data from len to ipi_buffer_size
> 
> memcpy_fromio(....) etc
> 
> > +	if (!tmp_data)
> > +		return;
> > +
> >   	scp_ipi_lock(scp, id);
> >   	handler = ipi_desc[id].handler;
> >   	if (!handler) {
> > @@ -123,6 +126,7 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> >   
> >   	scp->ipi_id_ack[id] = true;
> >   	wake_up(&scp->ack_wq);
> > +	kfree(tmp_data);
> 
> There's a possible memory leak. You forgot to kfree in the NULL
> handler path.
> 
> >   }
> >   

It seems more appropriate to allocate memory in the function
scp_rproc_init and free memory within the function scp_free.

And memset zero the tmp_data by ipi_share_buffer_size in function
scp_ipi_handler.

I will make changes like this.
If there are any other suggestions, plese provide them.
Thank you.


> >   static int scp_elf_read_ipi_buf_addr(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > @@ -133,6 +137,7 @@ static int scp_ipi_init(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > const struct firmware *fw)
> >   {
> >   	int ret;
> >   	size_t buf_sz, offset;
> > +	size_t share_buf_offset;
> >   
> >   	/* read the ipi buf addr from FW itself first */
> >   	ret = scp_elf_read_ipi_buf_addr(scp, fw, &offset);
> > @@ -154,10 +159,12 @@ static int scp_ipi_init(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > const struct firmware *fw)
> >   
> >   	scp->recv_buf = (struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *)
> >   			(scp->sram_base + offset);
> > +	share_buf_offset = sizeof(scp->recv_buf->id)
> > +		+ sizeof(scp->recv_buf->len) + scp->data-
> > >ipi_buffer_size;
> >   	scp->send_buf = (struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *)
> > -			(scp->sram_base + offset + sizeof(*scp-
> > >recv_buf));
> > -	memset_io(scp->recv_buf, 0, sizeof(*scp->recv_buf));
> > -	memset_io(scp->send_buf, 0, sizeof(*scp->send_buf));
> > +			(scp->sram_base + offset + share_buf_offset);
> > +	memset_io(scp->recv_buf, 0, share_buf_offset);
> > +	memset_io(scp->send_buf, 0, share_buf_offset);
> >   
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
> > @@ -891,7 +898,7 @@ static int scp_map_memory_region(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	/* Reserved SCP code size */
> > -	scp->dram_size = MAX_CODE_SIZE;
> > +	scp->dram_size = scp->data->max_code_size;
> 
> Remove the dram_size member from struct mtk_scp and use max_code_size
> directly.
> 

It will be corrected in the next version.

> >   	scp->cpu_addr = dma_alloc_coherent(scp->dev, scp->dram_size,
> >   					   &scp->dma_addr, GFP_KERNEL);
> >   	if (!scp->cpu_addr)
> > @@ -1247,6 +1254,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8183_of_data = {
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8183_HOST_TO_SCP,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8183_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> >   	.ipi_buf_offset = 0x7bdb0,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8186_of_data = {
> > @@ -1260,18 +1269,22 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8186_of_data = {
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8183_HOST_TO_SCP,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8183_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> >   	.ipi_buf_offset = 0x3bdb0,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data = {
> >   	.scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get,
> > -	.scp_before_load = mt8192_scp_before_load,
> > -	.scp_irq_handler = mt8192_scp_irq_handler,
> > +	.scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_before_load,
> > +	.scp_irq_handler = mt8195_scp_irq_handler,
> 
> You should mention the reason of this change in the commit
> description, or better,
> you should make a separate commit with a Fixes tag for this.
> 

I will add the reason in the commit description in the next version.

> >   	.scp_reset_assert = mt8192_scp_reset_assert,
> >   	.scp_reset_deassert = mt8192_scp_reset_deassert,
> > -	.scp_stop = mt8192_scp_stop,
> > +	.scp_stop = mt8195_scp_stop,
> >   	.scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 600,
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8192_of_data = {
> > @@ -1284,6 +1297,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8192_of_data = {
> >   	.scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data = {
> > @@ -1296,6 +1311,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8195_of_data = {
> >   	.scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> > @@ -1308,6 +1325,22 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> >   	.scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> >   	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> >   	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data_c1 = {
> > +	.scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get,
> > +	.scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_c1_before_load,
> > +	.scp_irq_handler = mt8195_scp_c1_irq_handler,
> > +	.scp_reset_assert = mt8195_scp_c1_reset_assert,
> > +	.scp_reset_deassert = mt8195_scp_c1_reset_deassert,
> > +	.scp_stop = mt8195_scp_c1_stop,
> > +	.scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > +	.host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > +	.host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > +	.max_code_size = 0xA00000,
> > +	.ipi_buffer_size = 600,
> 
> I wonder if it's more sensible to add a new struct instead,
> so that you can define
> 
> static const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data mt8188_scp_sizes = {
> 	.max_code_size = 0xA00000,
> 	.ipi_buffer_size = 600
> };
> 
> ...and then reuse like
> 
> static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data_c1 = {
> 	..... stuff .....
> 	.scp_sizes = &mt8188_scp_sizes
> };
> 
> ...that'd be more important for mt8192, 95 and the others as those
> params
> would be reused many, many times.
> 

Thanks for this suggestion.
It will be modified in the next version.

> >   };
> >   
> >   static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> > @@ -1316,6 +1349,12 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> >   	NULL
> >   };
> >   
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8188_of_data_cores[] = {
> > +	&mt8188_of_data,
> > +	&mt8188_of_data_c1,
> > +	NULL
> > +};
> > +
> >   static const struct of_device_id mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> >   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-scp", .data = &mt8183_of_data
> > },
> >   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-scp", .data = &mt8186_of_data
> > },
> > @@ -1323,6 +1362,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> >   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-scp", .data = &mt8192_of_data
> > },
> >   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp", .data = &mt8195_of_data
> > },
> >   	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp-dual", .data =
> > &mt8195_of_data_cores },
> > +	{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-scp-dual", .data =
> > &mt8188_of_data_cores },
> >   	{},
> >   };
> >   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mtk_scp_of_match);
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > index cd0b601..4ef5491 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > @@ -162,10 +162,12 @@ int scp_ipi_send(struct mtk_scp *scp, u32 id,
> > void *buf, unsigned int len,
> >   	struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *send_obj = scp->send_buf;
> >   	u32 val;
> >   	int ret;
> > +	size_t share_buf_offset;
> > +	void __iomem *share_buf_io_address;
> >   
> >   	if (WARN_ON(id <= SCP_IPI_INIT) || WARN_ON(id >= SCP_IPI_MAX)
> > ||
> >   	    WARN_ON(id == SCP_IPI_NS_SERVICE) ||
> > -	    WARN_ON(len > sizeof(send_obj->share_buf)) ||
> > WARN_ON(!buf))
> > +	    WARN_ON(len > scp->data->ipi_buffer_size) || WARN_ON(!buf))
> >   		return -EINVAL;
> >   
> >   	ret = clk_prepare_enable(scp->clk);
> > @@ -184,7 +186,10 @@ int scp_ipi_send(struct mtk_scp *scp, u32 id,
> > void *buf, unsigned int len,
> >   		goto unlock_mutex;
> >   	}
> >   
> > -	scp_memcpy_aligned(send_obj->share_buf, buf, len);
> > +	share_buf_offset = offsetof(struct mtk_share_obj, share_buf);
> > +	share_buf_io_address = (void __iomem *)((uintptr_t)scp-
> > >send_buf + share_buf_offset);
> > +
> > +	scp_memcpy_aligned(share_buf_io_address, buf, len);
> >   
> >   	writel(len, &send_obj->len);
> >   	writel(id, &send_obj->id);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > b/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > index 7c2b7cc9..344ff41 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ enum scp_ipi_id {
> >   	SCP_IPI_CROS_HOST_CMD,
> >   	SCP_IPI_VDEC_LAT,
> >   	SCP_IPI_VDEC_CORE,
> > +	SCP_IPI_IMGSYS_CMD,
> 
> There's no mention of the addition of this new IPI ID in the commit
> description.
> Please write something about it.

It will be added in the next version.

> Cheers,
> Angelo
> 
> >   	SCP_IPI_NS_SERVICE = 0xFF,
> >   	SCP_IPI_MAX = 0x100,
> >   };
> 
> 
> 

Best regards,
Olivia

Powered by blists - more mailing lists