Message-ID: <4046d7a9-7d6a-47d1-9435-90185e6d32af@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 09:36:26 -0500
From: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drivers: remoteproc: xlnx: add attach detach
 support



On 5/21/24 12:56 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Hi Tanmay,
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 05:51:25PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
>> It is possible that remote processor is already running before
>> linux boot or remoteproc platform driver probe. Implement required
>> remoteproc framework ops to provide resource table address and
>> connect or disconnect with remote processor in such case.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@....com>
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - Fix following sparse warnings
>> 
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c:827:21: sparse:    expected struct rsc_tbl_data *rsc_data_va
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c:844:18: sparse:    expected struct resource_table *rsc_addr
>> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c:898:24: sparse:    expected void volatile [noderef] __iomem *addr
>> 
>>  drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 164 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 160 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 84243d1dff9f..039370cffa32 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,10 @@
>>  /* RX mailbox client buffer max length */
>>  #define MBOX_CLIENT_BUF_MAX	(IPI_BUF_LEN_MAX + \
>>  				 sizeof(struct zynqmp_ipi_message))
>> +
>> +#define RSC_TBL_XLNX_MAGIC	((uint32_t)'x' << 24 | (uint32_t)'a' << 16 | \
>> +				 (uint32_t)'m' << 8 | (uint32_t)'p')
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * settings for RPU cluster mode which
>>   * reflects possible values of xlnx,cluster-mode dt-property
>> @@ -73,6 +77,15 @@ struct mbox_info {
>>  	struct mbox_chan *rx_chan;
>>  };
>>  
>> +/* Xilinx Platform specific data structure */
>> +struct rsc_tbl_data {
>> +	const int version;
>> +	const u32 magic_num;
>> +	const u32 comp_magic_num;
> 
> Why is a complement magic number needed?

Actually magic number is 64-bit. There is good chance that
firmware can have 32-bit op-code or data same as magic number, but very less
chance of its complement in the next address. So, we can assume magic number
is 64-bit. 

> 
>> +	const u32 rsc_tbl_size;
>> +	const uintptr_t rsc_tbl;
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Hardcoded TCM bank values. This will stay in driver to maintain backward
>>   * compatibility with device-tree that does not have TCM information.
>> @@ -95,20 +108,24 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
>>  /**
>>   * struct zynqmp_r5_core
>>   *
>> + * @rsc_tbl_va: resource table virtual address
>>   * @dev: device of RPU instance
>>   * @np: device node of RPU instance
>>   * @tcm_bank_count: number TCM banks accessible to this RPU
>>   * @tcm_banks: array of each TCM bank data
>>   * @rproc: rproc handle
>> + * @rsc_tbl_size: resource table size retrieved from remote
>>   * @pm_domain_id: RPU CPU power domain id
>>   * @ipi: pointer to mailbox information
>>   */
>>  struct zynqmp_r5_core {
>> +	struct resource_table *rsc_tbl_va;
> 
> Shouldn't this be of type "void __iomem *"?  Did sparse give you trouble on that
> one?

I fixed sparse warnings with typecast below [1].

> 
>>  	struct device *dev;
>>  	struct device_node *np;
>>  	int tcm_bank_count;
>>  	struct mem_bank_data **tcm_banks;
>>  	struct rproc *rproc;
>> +	u32 rsc_tbl_size;
>>  	u32 pm_domain_id;
>>  	struct mbox_info *ipi;
>>  };
>> @@ -621,10 +638,19 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>  {
>>  	int ret;
>>  
>> -	ret = add_tcm_banks(rproc);
>> -	if (ret) {
>> -		dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get TCM banks, err %d\n", ret);
>> -		return ret;
>> +	/**
> 
> Using "/**" is for comments that will endup in the documentation, which I don't
> think is needed here.  Please correct throughout the patch.

Thanks. Ack, I will use only /* format.

> 
>> +	 * For attach/detach use case, Firmware is already loaded so
>> +	 * TCM isn't really needed at all. Also, for security TCM can be
>> +	 * locked in such case and linux may not have access at all.
>> +	 * So avoid adding TCM banks. TCM power-domains requested during attach
>> +	 * callback.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (rproc->state != RPROC_DETACHED) {
>> +		ret = add_tcm_banks(rproc);
>> +		if (ret) {
>> +			dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get TCM banks, err %d\n", ret);
>> +			return ret;
>> +		}
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	ret = add_mem_regions_carveout(rproc);
>> @@ -662,6 +688,123 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static struct resource_table *zynqmp_r5_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
>> +							     size_t *size)
>> +{
>> +	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core;
>> +
>> +	r5_core = rproc->priv;
>> +
>> +	*size = r5_core->rsc_tbl_size;
>> +
>> +	return r5_core->rsc_tbl_va;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core)
>> +{
>> +	struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
>> +	struct rsc_tbl_data *rsc_data_va;
>> +	struct resource_table *rsc_addr;
>> +	struct resource res_mem;
>> +	struct device_node *np;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * It is expected from remote processor firmware to provide resource
>> +	 * table address via struct rsc_tbl_data data structure.
>> +	 * Start address of first entry under "memory-region" property list
>> +	 * contains that data structure which holds resource table address, size
>> +	 * and some magic number to validate correct resource table entry.
>> +	 */
>> +	np = of_parse_phandle(r5_core->np, "memory-region", 0);
>> +	if (!np) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get memory region dev node\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res_mem);
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get memory-region resource addr\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	rsc_data_va = (struct rsc_tbl_data *)devm_ioremap_wc(dev, res_mem.start,
>> +							     sizeof(struct rsc_tbl_data));
> 
> There is no point in holding memory until the driver is unloaded.  Please use
> ioremap_wc() and free at the end of the function.
> 

Ack.

>> +	if (!rsc_data_va) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to map resource table data address\n");
>> +		return -EIO;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * If RSC_TBL_XLNX_MAGIC number and its complement isn't found then
>> +	 * do not consider resource table address valid and don't attach
>> +	 */
>> +	if (rsc_data_va->magic_num != RSC_TBL_XLNX_MAGIC ||
>> +	    rsc_data_va->comp_magic_num != ~RSC_TBL_XLNX_MAGIC) {
>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "invalid magic number, won't attach\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	rsc_addr = (struct resource_table *)ioremap_wc(rsc_data_va->rsc_tbl,
>> +						       rsc_data_va->rsc_tbl_size);

[1] Here typecast is done.

>> +	if (!rsc_addr) {
>> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get rsc_addr\n");
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * As of now resource table version 1 is expected. Don't fail to attach
>> +	 * but warn users about it.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (rsc_addr->ver != 1)
>> +		dev_warn(dev, "unexpected resource table version %d\n",
>> +			 rsc_addr->ver);
>> +
>> +	r5_core->rsc_tbl_size = rsc_data_va->rsc_tbl_size;
>> +	r5_core->rsc_tbl_va = rsc_addr;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int zynqmp_r5_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
>> +	int i, pm_domain_id, ret;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Firmware is loaded in TCM. Request TCM power domains to notify
>> +	 * platform management controller that TCM is in use. This will be
>> +	 * released during unprepare callback.
>> +	 */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) {
>> +		pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id;
>> +		ret = zynqmp_pm_request_node(pm_domain_id,
>> +					     ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0,
>> +					     ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING);
>> +		if (ret < 0)
>> +			pr_warn("TCM %d can't be requested\n", i);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int zynqmp_r5_detach(struct rproc *rproc)
>> +{
>> +	struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Generate last notification to remote after clearing virtio flag.
>> +	 * Remote can avoid polling on virtio reset flag if kick is generated
>> +	 * during detach by host and check virtio reset flag on kick interrupt.
>> +	 */
>> +	zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick(rproc, 0);
>> +
>> +	iounmap((void __iomem *)r5_core->rsc_tbl_va);
>> +	r5_core->rsc_tbl_va = NULL;
> 
> This is puzzling...  What happens to ->tsc_tbl_va when the remote processor is
> re-attached? 

Actually I don't see re-attach in life cycle. I might be missing something.
Following is lifecycle I have tested:

1) During driver probe, if resource table is found in memory, then state is
   moved to detach.
2) Then user executes echo start > remoteproc* command, and state moved to attach.
3) After work is done with remote, user executes echo stop > remoteproc* command,
   and state is moved to offline.

>From here, remote is offline state, and I can't re-attach to it without loading
firmware again. which is regular start/stop states. Please let me know if I am missing
something.

>From here, load firmware, and executing echo start > remoteproc* moves
rproc state to running. Load firmware loads resource table from elf.

So, I believe attach is happening only during probe. And then, once r5 stops, user
needs to load firmware and start R5. I think this use case is good for now.
 
> 
> I will not look at the SRAM part.  Please re-submit when we are done with the
> attach/detach feature.
> 

Okay sounds good to me.
Reviews are still welcomed if anyone in the community decides to review it.

Thanks,
Tanmay
 > Thanks,
> Mathieu
> 
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
>>  	.prepare	= zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare,
>>  	.unprepare	= zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare,
>> @@ -673,6 +816,9 @@ static const struct rproc_ops zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops = {
>>  	.sanity_check	= rproc_elf_sanity_check,
>>  	.get_boot_addr	= rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
>>  	.kick		= zynqmp_r5_rproc_kick,
>> +	.get_loaded_rsc_table = zynqmp_r5_get_loaded_rsc_table,
>> +	.attach		= zynqmp_r5_attach,
>> +	.detach		= zynqmp_r5_detach,
>>  };
>>  
>>  /**
>> @@ -723,6 +869,16 @@ static struct zynqmp_r5_core *zynqmp_r5_add_rproc_core(struct device *cdev)
>>  		goto free_rproc;
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Move rproc state to DETACHED to give one time opportunity to attach
>> +	 * if firmware is already available in the memory. This can happen if
>> +	 * firmware is loaded via debugger or by any other agent in the system.
>> +	 * If firmware isn't available in the memory and resource table isn't found,
>> +	 * then rproc state stay OFFLINE.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!zynqmp_r5_get_rsc_table_va(r5_core))
>> +		r5_rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
>> +
>>  	r5_core->rproc = r5_rproc;
>>  	return r5_core;
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists