Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: Introduce TI message manager driver

Nishanth Menon
2016-03-08T14:37:32Z

Jassi,

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2016 12:31 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +static int ti_msgmgr_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct device *dev = chan->mbox->dev;
>>>>>> + struct ti_msgmgr_inst *inst = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>>> + const struct ti_msgmgr_desc *desc;
>>>>>> + struct ti_queue_inst *qinst = chan->con_priv;
>>>>>> + int msg_count, num_words, trail_bytes;
>>>>>> + struct ti_msgmgr_message *message = data;
>>>>>> + void __iomem *data_reg;
>>>>>> + u32 *word_data;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (WARN_ON(!inst)) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "no platform drv data??\n");
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + desc = inst->desc;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (desc->max_message_size < message->len) {
>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Queue %s message length %d > max %d\n",
>>>>>> + qinst->name, message->len, desc->max_message_size);
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* Are we able to send this or not? */
>>>>>> + msg_count = ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages(qinst);
>>>>>> + if (msg_count >= desc->max_messages) {
>>>>>> + dev_warn(dev, "Queue %s is full (%d messages)\n", qinst->name,
>>>>>> + msg_count);
>>>>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>> This seems fishy. mailbox api always submit 1 'complete' message to be
>>>>> sent and checks for completion by last_tx_done() before calling
>>>>> send_data() again. Controller drivers are not supposed to queue
>>>>> messages - mailbox core does. So you should never be unable to send a
>>>>> message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK-> to explain this, few reasons: (queue messages check and usage of
>>>> last_tx_done are kind of intertwined answer..
>>>> a) we need to remember that the message manager has a shared RAM.
>>>> multiple transmitter over other queues can be sharing the same.
>>>> unfortunately, we dont get a threshold kind of interrupt or status that
>>>> I am able to exploit in the current incarnation of the solution. The
>>>> best we can do in the full system is to constrain the number of messages
>>>> that are max pending simultaneously in each of the queue from various
>>>> transmitters in the SoC.
>>>> b) last_tx_done() is checked if TXDONE_BY_POLL, not if TXDONE_BY_ACK
>>>> right? which is how this'd work since txdone_poll is false -> that is
>>>> how we want this mechanism to work once the far end is ready for next
>>>> message, it acks. I do see your point about being tied to protocol - I
>>>> dont like it either.. in fact, I'd prefer that client registration
>>>> mention what kind of handshaking is necessary, but: a) that is not how
>>>> mailbox framework is constructed at the moment(we state txdone_poll at
>>>> mailbox registration, not at client usage) and b) I have no real need
>>>> for multiple clients to users of message manager who actually need
>>>> non-ACK usage - even for the foreseeable future (at least 1 next
>>>> generation of SoC) - if such a need does arise in the future, I will
>>>> have to rework framework and make this capability at the registration
>>>> time of the client - allowing each client path to use different
>>>> mechanisms on hardware such as these that need it.
>>>> c) message manager can actually queue more than one message(depending on
>>>> client capability). Even though, at this point, we are not really
>>>> capable of doing it(again from what I can see for immediate future),
>>>> mailbox framework by checking last_tx_done forces a single message
>>>> sequencing - which is not really exploiting the capability of the
>>>> hardware - in theory, we should be able to queue max num messages, hit
>>>> cpuidle and snooze away while the remote entity chomp away data at it's
>>>> own pace and finally give us a notification back - but again, we can
>>>> argue it is indeed protocol dependent, so setting txdone_poll to false
>>>> actually enables that to be done in user. Again - i have no immediate
>>>> need for any queued multiple transfer needs yet.. even if i need to, in
>>>> the future, it can easily be done by the client by maintaining code as
>>>> is - txdone_poll is false.
>>>>
>>> All I suggest is that the controller does not queue more than 1
>>> message at a time, which means the controller driver allows for
>>> maximum possible resources taken by a message.
>>> The buffering is already done by the core, and if for your 'batch
>>> dispatch' thing the client could simply flush them to remote by
>>> pretending it got the ack (which is no worse than simply sending all
>>> messages to remote without caring if the first was successful or not).
>>
>> Are you suggesting to set txdone_poll is true?
> No.
>
>> the controller is quite
>> capable of queueing more than 1 message at a time. This the reason for
>> letting the client choose the mode of operation - use ack mechanism for
>> operation. client can choose to ignore the buffering in the controller,
>> as you mentioned, but then, why force txdone_poll to true and deny the
>> usage of the queue capability of the hardware?
>>
> irq/poll/ack whatever you use, there is no valid reason to buffer
> messages in the controller driver. Please let me know what usecase you
> have in mind that must have messages buffered in controller driver and
> not core.

I am confused, I am _not_ buffering any tx data in the controller
driver - rx data is stored in a temp buffer to send up the stack -
that is just regular practise, right?. In tx, I just check to ensure
that the queue has'nt run out prior to transmission since the hardware
is capable of queueing - ok, in a single transmitter system it is
probably a little overkill, but we would like to function in multiple
producer SoC as well. What am I missing here?

--
---
Regards,
Nishanth Menon