Re: [PATCH v2] bus: mhi: core: Add unique qrtr node id support

Kalle Valo
2021-03-01T18:31:40Z

Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@codeaurora.org> writes:

> On 2021-03-01 03:14 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> + ath11k list
>>
>> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 04:12:49PM +0530, Gokul Sriram Palanisamy
>>> wrote:
>>>> On platforms with two or more identical mhi
>>>> devices, qmi service will run with identical
>>>> qrtr-node-id. Because of this identical ID,
>>>> host qrtr-lookup cannot register more than one
>>>> qmi service with identical node ID. Ultimately,
>>>> only one qmi service will be avilable for the
>>>> underlying drivers to communicate with.
>>>>
>>>> On QCN9000, it implements a unique qrtr-node-id
>>>> and qmi instance ID using a unique instance ID
>>>> written to a debug register from host driver
>>>> soon after SBL is loaded.
>>>>
>>>> This change generates a unique instance ID from
>>>> PCIe domain number and bus number, writes to the
>>>> given debug register just after SBL is loaded so
>>>> that it is available for FW when the QMI service
>>>> is spawned.
>>>>
>>>> sample:
>>>> root@OpenWrt:/# qrtr-lookup
>>>> Service Version Instance Node Port
>>>> 15 1 0 8 1 Test service
>>>> 69 1 8 8 2 ATH10k WLAN firmware service
>>>> 15 1 0 24 1 Test service
>>>> 69 1 24 24 2 ATH10k WLAN firmware service
>>>>
>>>> Here 8 and 24 on column 3 (QMI Instance ID)
>>>> and 4 (QRTR Node ID) are the node IDs that
>>>> is unique per mhi device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <gokulsri@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/boot.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/boot.c
>>>> b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/boot.c
>>>> index c2546bf..5e5dad5 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/boot.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/boot.c
>>>> @@ -16,8 +16,12 @@
>>>> #include <linux/random.h>
>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> #include <linux/wait.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pci.h>
>>>> #include "internal.h"
>>>>
>>>> +#define QRTR_INSTANCE_MASK 0x000000FF
>>>> +#define QRTR_INSTANCE_SHIFT 0
>>>> +
>>>> /* Setup RDDM vector table for RDDM transfer and program RXVEC */
>>>> void mhi_rddm_prepare(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
>>>> struct image_info *img_info)
>>>> @@ -391,6 +395,9 @@ void mhi_fw_load_handler(struct mhi_controller
>>>> *mhi_cntrl)
>>>> const struct firmware *firmware = NULL;
>>>> struct image_info *image_info;
>>>> struct device *dev = &mhi_cntrl->mhi_dev->dev;
>>>> + struct pci_dev *pci_dev = to_pci_dev(mhi_cntrl->cntrl_dev);
>>>> + struct pci_bus *bus = pci_dev->bus;
>>>> + uint32_t instance;
>>>> const char *fw_name;
>>>> void *buf;
>>>> dma_addr_t dma_addr;
>>>> @@ -466,6 +473,13 @@ void mhi_fw_load_handler(struct
>>>> mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl)
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + instance = ((pci_domain_nr(bus) & 0xF) << 4) | (bus->number & 0xF);
>>>> + instance &= QRTR_INSTANCE_MASK;
>>>> +
>>>> + mhi_write_reg_field(mhi_cntrl, mhi_cntrl->bhi,
>>>> + BHI_ERRDBG2, QRTR_INSTANCE_MASK,
>>>> + QRTR_INSTANCE_SHIFT, instance);
>>>
>>> You cannot not do this in MHI stack. Why can't you do this in the
>>> MHI controller
>>> specific to QCN9000? And btw, is QCN9000 supported in mainline?
>>
>> I'm not sure what QCN9000 means but I'm guessing it's QCN9074. We have
>> initial QCN9074 support in ath11k but there are some issues still so
>> it's not enabled by default (yet):
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/ath.git/commit/?h=ath-next&id=4e80946197a83a6115e308334618449b77696d6a
>>
>> And I suspect we have this same qrtr issue with any ath11k PCI device,
>> including QCA6390, so this is not a QCN9074 specific problem.
>>
>> BTW Gokul, please always CC the ath11k list when submitting patches
>> which are related to ath11k.
>
> QRTR sits on top of MHI so shouldn't this be handled outside of MHI
> after MHI is operational? We cannot allow PCI code in MHI core driver
> but this can be handled pre or post MHI power-up in whatever way you
> desire that does not have to directly involve MHI.

Sure, makes sense. I was just replying to Mani's question about status
of QCN9000 upstream support.

So should we handle this within ath11k, is that the right approach? I
also suspect that for QCN9074 and QCA6390 we have to do this a bit
differently, so it would be easier to handle the differences between
devices (and firmware versions) inside ath11k.

--