[PATCH 7/8] mailbox: f_mhu: add driver for Fujitsu MHU controller

Sudeep Holla
2014-07-17T10:31:13Z

On 17/07/14 07:25, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 16 July 2014 23:07, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mollie,
>>
>>
>> On 13/07/14 07:32, Mollie Wu wrote:
>>>
>>> Add driver for the proprietary Mailbox controller (f_mhu) in MB86S7x.

[...]

>>
>>> + u32 val;
>>> +
>>> + pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
>>
>>
>> Please remove all these debug prints.
>>
> These are as good as absent unless DEBUG is defined.
>

Yes, but with mailbox framework, the controller driver(esp. this one)is
almost like a shim layer. Instead of each driver adding these debugs,
IMO it would be good to have these in the framework.

>>
>>> + /* See NOTE_RX_DONE */
>>> + val = readl_relaxed(mlink->rx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
>>> + mbox_chan_received_data(chan, (void *)val);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * It is agreed with the remote firmware that the receiver
>>> + * will clear the STAT register indicating it is ready to
>>> + * receive next data - NOTE_RX_DONE
>>> + */
>>
>> This note could be added as how this mailbox works in general and
>> it's not just Rx right ? Even Tx done is based on this logic.
>> Basically the logic is valid on both directions.
>>
> Yes that is a protocol level agreement. Different f/w may behave differently.
>

Ok, I am not sure if that's entirely true because the MHU spec says it
drives
the signal using a 32-bit register, with all 32 bits logically ORed
together.
Usually only Rx signals are wired to interrupts and Tx needs to be polled
but that's entirely implementation choice I believe.

More over if it's protocol level agreement it should not belong here :)

>>> +static int mhu_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + u32 val;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&mlink->lock, flags);
>>> + val = readl_relaxed(mlink->tx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
>>> + writel_relaxed(val, mlink->tx_reg + INTR_CLR_OFS);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mlink->lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + ret = request_irq(mlink->irq, mhu_rx_interrupt,
>>> + IRQF_SHARED, "mhu_link", chan);
>>
>>
>> Just a thought: Can this be threaded_irq instead ?
>> Can move request_irq to probe instead esp. if threaded_irq ?
>> That provides some flexibility to client's rx_callback.
>>
> This is controller driver, and can not know which client want
> rx_callback in hard-irq context and which in thread_fn context.
> Otherwise, request_irq() does evaluate to request_threaded_irq(), if
> thats what you mean.

Agreed but on contrary since MHU involves external firmware(running
on different processor) which might have it's own latency, I prefer
threaded over hard irq. And yes request_irq does evaluate to
request_threaded_irq but with thread_fn = NULL which is not what I want.

> There might be use-cases like (diagnostic or other) data transfer
> over mailbox where we don't wanna increase latency, so we have to
> provide a rx_callback in hard-irq context.
>

OK

>>
>>> + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
>>> + mhu->chan[i].con_priv = &mhu->mlink[i];
>>> + spin_lock_init(&mhu->mlink[i].lock);
>>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, i);
>>> + mhu->mlink[i].irq = res->start;
>>> + mhu->mlink[i].rx_reg = mhu->base + mhu_reg[i];
>>> + mhu->mlink[i].tx_reg = mhu->mlink[i].rx_reg + 0x100;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + mhu->mbox.dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> + mhu->mbox.chans = &mhu->chan[0];
>>> + mhu->mbox.num_chans = 3;
>>
>>
>> Change this to 2, we shouldn't expose secular channel here as Linux can't
>> access that anyway.
>>
> On the contrary, I think the device driver code should be able to
> manage every resource - secure or non-secure. If we remove secure
> channel option, what do we do on some other platform that needs it?
> And Linux may not always run in non-secure mode.

In general secure accesses are avoided these days in Linux as we have no
way to identify it. I agree there are few place where we do access.
Even though I don't like you have secure channel access in Linux, you
have valid reasons. In case you decide to support it, there is some
restrictions in bit 31, though RAZ/WI you need to notify that to protocol
if it tries to access it ?

> So here we populate all channels and let the clients knows which
> channel to use via platform specific details - DT. Please note the
> driver doesn't touch any secure resource if client doesn't ask it to
> (except SCFG for now, which I think should have some S vs NS DT
> binding).
>

Not sure of this though. We need feedback from DT maintainers.

Regards,
Sudeep