Message-ID: <4c4eb491.13b6.18f9396ae58.Coremail.slark_xiao@163.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 09:21:16 +0800 (CST)
From: "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com>
To: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <mani@...nel.org>, loic.poulain@...aro.org, 
	mhi@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_qianyu@...cinc.com
Subject: Re:Re: Re:Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] bus: mhi: host: Add Foxconn SDX72
 related support



At 2024-05-17 18:49:47, "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 05:59:03PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> 
>> At 2024-05-17 09:09:05, "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@....com> wrote:
>> >
>> >At 2024-05-16 22:23:46, "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >>On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 08:17:23PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> At 2024-05-15 19:52:39, "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <mani@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >>> >On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 04:01:37PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> >>> >> 
>> >>> >> At 2024-05-15 15:41:19, "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >+ Qiang
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 09:29:20AM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> >>> >> >> At 2024-05-14 22:37:41, "Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:26:57AM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> Align with Qcom SDX72, add ready timeout item for Foxconn SDX72.
>> >>> >> >> >> And also, add firehose support since SDX72.
>> >>> >> >> >> 
>> >>> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Slark Xiao <slark_xiao@....com>
>> >>> >> >> >> ---
>> >>> >> >> >>  drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>> >> >> >>  1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>> >>> >> >> >> 
>> >>> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
>> >>> >> >> >> index 08844ee79654..0fd94c193fc6 100644
>> >>> >> >> >> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
>> >>> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
>> >>> >> >> >> @@ -399,6 +399,8 @@ static const struct mhi_channel_config mhi_foxconn_sdx55_channels[] = {
>> >>> >> >> >>  	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_DL(13, "MBIM", 32, 0),
>> >>> >> >> >>  	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_UL(32, "DUN", 32, 0),
>> >>> >> >> >>  	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_DL(33, "DUN", 32, 0),
>> >>> >> >> >> +	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_UL_FP(34, "FIREHOSE", 32, 0),
>> >>> >> >> >> +	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_DL_FP(35, "FIREHOSE", 32, 0),
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >This means SDX55 is also supporting FIREHOSE channels, which is not true I
>> >>> >> >> >believe.
>> >>> >> >> Actually, I just verified it with my sdx55 and the answer is Yes. These channels
>> >>> >> >> are common settings for Qcom device which support PCIe mode. BTW, the
>> >>> >> >> default settings of Qcom and Quectel support firehose for their sdx55 products.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Qiang, can you please confirm that SDX55 supports FIREHOSE channels?
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >>  	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_HW_UL(100, "IP_HW0_MBIM", 128, 2),
>> >>> >> >> >>  	MHI_CHANNEL_CONFIG_HW_DL(101, "IP_HW0_MBIM", 128, 3),
>> >>> >> >> >>  };
>> >>> >> >> >> @@ -419,6 +421,16 @@ static const struct mhi_controller_config modem_foxconn_sdx55_config = {
>> >>> >> >> >>  	.event_cfg = mhi_foxconn_sdx55_events,
>> >>> >> >> >>  };
>> >>> >> >> >>  
>> >>> >> >> >> +static const struct mhi_controller_config modem_foxconn_sdx72_config = {
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.max_channels = 128,
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.timeout_ms = 20000,
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.ready_timeout_ms = 50000,
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.num_channels = ARRAY_SIZE(mhi_foxconn_sdx55_channels),
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.ch_cfg = mhi_foxconn_sdx55_channels,
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.num_events = ARRAY_SIZE(mhi_foxconn_sdx55_events),
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.event_cfg = mhi_foxconn_sdx55_events,
>> >>> >> >> >> +};
>> >>> >> >> >> +
>> >>> >> >> >>  static const struct mhi_pci_dev_info mhi_foxconn_sdx24_info = {
>> >>> >> >> >>  	.name = "foxconn-sdx24",
>> >>> >> >> >>  	.config = &modem_foxconn_sdx55_config,
>> >>> >> >> >> @@ -448,6 +460,16 @@ static const struct mhi_pci_dev_info mhi_foxconn_sdx65_info = {
>> >>> >> >> >>  	.sideband_wake = false,
>> >>> >> >> >>  };
>> >>> >> >> >>  
>> >>> >> >> >> +static const struct mhi_pci_dev_info mhi_foxconn_sdx72_info = {
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.name = "foxconn-sdx72",
>> >>> >> >> >> +	.edl = "qcom/sdx72m/xbl_s_devprg_ns.melf",
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> >What is '.melf'? Is the firmware available somewhere? Did you plan to upstream
>> >>> >> >> >it to linux-firmware?
>> >>> >> >> >
>> >>> >> >> This file similar with "edl.mbn". In SDX72 product, the default "edl" file name is
>> >>> >> >> "xbl_s_devprg_ns.melf". Currently we don't plan to upstream it to linux-firmware
>> >>> >> >> since 2 reasons: 1: we share the same fold name sdx72m with qcom or other vendors
>> >>> >> >> 2: this file may be changed since sdx72 product still under developing in our side. we
>> >>> >> >> may change the base line according to QCOM release.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Then I would ask you to add support when you have a stable firmware. I do not
>> >>> >> >want to change the firmware name after some time as it will confuse users.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >- Mani
>> >>> >> If a stable firmware must be provided, I think I shall change the folder name from qcom to
>> >>> >> fox, do you agree this?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Even in that case, where can the user find the firmware?
>> >>> >
>> >>> I think this edl file could help user let device enter into edl mode(wwan0firehose0).
>> >>> For PCIE device, there is no opensource tool to support PCIE edl download. If user
>> >>> could get the tool to do the firehose download, I think it's not hard to get complete firmware
>> >>> from PC vendor or somewhere else.
>> >>
>> >>I was told that Qcom will upstream the PCI support for QDL in the coming weeks.
>> >>Once that happens (even if a PR), I'll share that with you. Please test it and
>> >>let me know if that works or not.
>> >>
>> >Sure. But I think this shall not the block cause for merging this patch, right?
>> >Before that PR, we have verified the firehose function in our local with our
>> >firehose tool which is not open. 
>
>Yeah, QDL is not a blocker for this device.
If there is no other issue, I will release a V2 version based on the edl file path and name.
Also, I will add the ".edl_trigger=true" for my sdx72 devices.
For previous sdx55 and sdx65 firehose support, I think a new commit would be better 
to cover that.
>
>> >>And for entering EDL mode, we have recently added support to trigger EDL mode
>> >>from host [1]. Could you also test that? You just need to add `edl_trigger =
>> >>true` to the `mhi_pci_dev_info` struct of SDX72 and trigger EDL mode from host
>> >>by:
>> >>
>> >>echo 1 > /sys/bus/mhi/devices/.../trigger_edl
>> >>
>> >Do you remember that I told you I want to merge such function from qualcomm driver
>> >in last year? I merge the commit from QUD driver in my local. Actually it's same as the
>> >commit [1], it's called "force_edl". And sure, the result is yes, it works well.
>> >
>> Latest test, it doesn't work in Linux V6.9 since there is a patch missing. In my local previous
>> test, there is no mhi_cntrl->edl_trigger condition to set up dev_attr_trigger_edl.
>> Seems patch [2] is missed.
>> 
>> [2]-https://lore.kernel.org/mhi/1713928915-18229-4-git-send-email-quic_qianyu@quicinc.com/
>
>You need to apply the whole series. But anyway, thanks for testing it out.
>
>> >>> >> BTW, I need to check if it works after updating 'edl fw' from  xbl_s_devprg_ns.melf to
>> >>> >> edl.mbn. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Okay. IMO, we should upstream the product support only after a stable firmware
>> >>> >release (well stable in the sense a stable name at least).
>> >>> >
>> >>> >- Mani
>> >>> The check result is we can rename it to align with previous format. Until now, 
>> >>> I didn't see any mhi device has upstream their firmware to /lib/firmware/qcom folder.
>> >>
>> >>It is not mandatory, but it is a best practise that I recently started asking
>> >>for.
>> >>
>> >>> If it's a must, I think we can upstream the edl file later.  Anyway, we hope we can
>> >>> merge this sdx72 support into 6.10 since customer(Dell) would use this kernel for official
>> >>> release. But no worry, we can make sure this firehose download method works well in
>> >>>  our local side.
>> >>> And also, please help a review about my previous email about fix sdx72 ping failure issue.
>> >>> There is a fix solution from us. 
>> >>> 
>> >>
>> >>Qiang is working on that.
>> >Good to hear that. BTW, may I know the feature merge window in V6.10? I don't worry about
>> >merge window of the network fix commit, since it's a fix with higher priority. But I want to
>> >merge the basic support of my SDX72 before merge window close. This is important for us.
>> >
>
>MHI tree is closed during -rc6, so there is no way this patch can make 6.10.
I saw you tag mhi-for-6.10 which was created in 4/25,  before linux 6.9-RC6.
But V6.9 was just released in 5/13, and there is a lot of time before V6.10.
Why close the merge window for V6.10 so early?
>
>- Mani
>
>-- 
>மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்

Powered by blists - more mailing lists