Re: [PATCH v3 23/25] bus: mhi: ep: Add support for queueing SKBs to the host

Manivannan Sadhasivam
2022-02-22T14:38:35Z

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:40:29PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 2/12/22 12:21 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > Add support for queueing SKBs to the host over the transfer ring of the
> > relevant channel. The mhi_ep_queue_skb() API will be used by the client
> > networking drivers to queue the SKBs to the host over MHI bus.
> >
> > The host will add ring elements to the transfer ring periodically for
> > the device and the device will write SKBs to the ring elements. If a
> > single SKB doesn't fit in a ring element (TRE), it will be placed in
> > multiple ring elements and the overflow event will be sent for all ring
> > elements except the last one. For the last ring element, the EOT event
> > will be sent indicating the packet boundary.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
>
> I'm a little confused by this, so maybe you can provide
> a better explanation somehow.
>
> -Alex
>
> > ---
> > drivers/bus/mhi/ep/main.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/mhi_ep.h | 13 +++++
> > 2 files changed, 115 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/ep/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/ep/main.c
> > index baf383a4857b..e4186b012257 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/ep/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/ep/main.c
> > @@ -488,6 +488,108 @@ int mhi_ep_process_tre_ring(struct mhi_ep_ring *ring, struct mhi_ep_ring_element
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +int mhi_ep_queue_skb(struct mhi_ep_device *mhi_dev, enum dma_data_direction dir,
> > + struct sk_buff *skb, size_t len, enum mhi_flags mflags)
>
> Why are both skb and len supplied? Will an skb be supplied
> without wanting to send all of it? Must len be less than
> skb->len? I'm a little confused about the interface.
>
> Also, the data direction is *out*, right? You'll never
> be queueing a "receive" SKB?
>

This was done to be compatible with the MHI host API where the host can queue
SKBs in both directions. But I think I should stop doing this.

> > +{
> > + struct mhi_ep_chan *mhi_chan = (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE) ? mhi_dev->dl_chan :
> > + mhi_dev->ul_chan;
> > + struct mhi_ep_cntrl *mhi_cntrl = mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl;
> > + struct device *dev = &mhi_chan->mhi_dev->dev;
> > + struct mhi_ep_ring_element *el;
> > + struct mhi_ep_ring *ring;
> > + size_t bytes_to_write;
> > + enum mhi_ev_ccs code;
> > + void *read_from_loc;
> > + u32 buf_remaining;
> > + u64 write_to_loc;
> > + u32 tre_len;
> > + int ret = 0;
> > +
> > + if (dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Can't you just preclude this from happening, or
> know it won't happen by inspection?
>
> > +
> > + buf_remaining = len;
> > + ring = &mhi_cntrl->mhi_chan[mhi_chan->chan].ring;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&mhi_chan->lock);
> > +
> > + do {
> > + /* Don't process the transfer ring if the channel is not in RUNNING state */
> > + if (mhi_chan->state != MHI_CH_STATE_RUNNING) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Channel not available\n");
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + goto err_exit;
> > + }
> > +
>
> It would be nice if the caller could know whether there
> was enough room *before* you start transferring things.
> It's probably a lot of work to get to that point though.
>

No, the caller will do this check but the check is included here so that we
don't run out of buffers when the packet needs to be splitted.

> > + if (mhi_ep_queue_is_empty(mhi_dev, dir)) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "TRE not available!\n");
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto err_exit;
> > + }
> > +
> > + el = &ring->ring_cache[ring->rd_offset];
> > + tre_len = MHI_EP_TRE_GET_LEN(el);
> > + if (skb->len > tre_len) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Buffer size (%d) is too large for TRE (%d)!\n",
> > + skb->len, tre_len);
>
> This means the receive buffer must be big enough to hold
> any incoming SKB. This is *without* checking for the
> CHAIN flag in the TRE, so what you describe in the
> patch description seems not to be true. I.e., multiple
> TREs in a TRD will *not* be consumed if the SKB data
> requires more than what's left in the current TRE.
>

I think I removed this check for v3 but somehow the change got lost :/

But anyway, there is no need to check for CHAIN flag while writing to host.
CHAIN flag is only used or even make sense when host writes data to device, so
that it knows the packet boundary and could use the CHAIN flag to tell the
device where the boundary lies.

But when the device writes to host, it already has the pre-queued elements from
host that has no idea where the packet boundary lies. So the host would've set
only EOT on all TREs and expects the device to send OVERFLOW event for TREs that
don't have the complete packet. Then finally, when device sends EOT event, the
host will detect the boundary.

Thanks,
Mani