From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@kernel.org>
To: adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com, mdf@kernel.org, yilun.xu@intel.com,
trix@redhat.com, linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Ang Tien Sung <tiensung.ang@altera.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: stratix10-svc: support up to 4 buffer claims and extend timeout
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:36:29 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6c64c903-0df0-4838-954f-4c82baf48971@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b67ffe732654c7db86c4b5d987af92dcc12bf4f3.1770706895.git.adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com>
On 2/10/26 01:16, adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com wrote:
> From: Adrian Ng Ho Yin <adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com>
>
> The service layer previously only returned up to three buffer addresses
> per transaction. Extend the logic in svc_thread_cmd_data_claim() to
> collect up to four buffer claims. A new field `kaddr4` is added to
> struct stratix10_svc_cb_data, and the FPGA manager callback unlocks this
> fourth buffer accordingly.
>
> Timeout values for reconfiguration and buffer transactions are also
> increased (from ~300–720ms to 5000ms), since real-world processing takes
> significantly longer (~600ms or more). The reconfiguration complete
> timeout is also replaced with S10_RECONFIG_TIMEOUT (>1s) to avoid
> premature aborts.
>
> Additional changes:
> - Callbacks are updated to pass all claimed buffers to clients.
> - Debug logging is added to trace received status values.
> - Simplified buffer wait logic in s10_ops_write() by always using
> wait_for_completion_timeout().
>
> These changes improve robustness of FPGA configuration on SoCFPGA
> platforms by handling larger transactions and accommodating realistic
> timing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ang Tien Sung <tiensung.ang@altera.com>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Ng Ho Yin <adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c | 36 +++++++++++++------
> drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c | 18 +++++-----
> .../firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h | 6 ++--
> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c b/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
> index dbed404a71fc..58cf68d9a384 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/stratix10-svc.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,8 @@ static void svc_thread_cmd_data_claim(struct stratix10_svc_controller *ctrl,
> {
> struct arm_smccc_res res;
> unsigned long timeout;
> + void *buf_claim_addr[4] = {NULL};
> + int buf_claim_count = 0;
>
> reinit_completion(&ctrl->complete_status);
> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(FPGA_CONFIG_DATA_CLAIM_TIMEOUT_MS);
> @@ -353,20 +355,32 @@ static void svc_thread_cmd_data_claim(struct stratix10_svc_controller *ctrl,
>
> if (res.a0 == INTEL_SIP_SMC_STATUS_OK) {
> if (!res.a1) {
> + /* Transaction of 4 blocks are now done */
This comment is a bit misleading. How do you know you finish exactly 4
blocks?
> complete(&ctrl->complete_status);
> + cb_data->status = BIT(SVC_STATUS_BUFFER_DONE);
> + cb_data->kaddr1 = buf_claim_addr[0];
> + cb_data->kaddr2 = buf_claim_addr[1];
> + cb_data->kaddr3 = buf_claim_addr[2];
> + cb_data->kaddr4 = buf_claim_addr[3];
> + p_data->chan->scl->receive_cb(p_data->chan->scl,
> + cb_data);
> break;
> }
> - cb_data->status = BIT(SVC_STATUS_BUFFER_DONE);
> - cb_data->kaddr1 = svc_pa_to_va(res.a1);
> - cb_data->kaddr2 = (res.a2) ?
> - svc_pa_to_va(res.a2) : NULL;
> - cb_data->kaddr3 = (res.a3) ?
> - svc_pa_to_va(res.a3) : NULL;
> - p_data->chan->scl->receive_cb(p_data->chan->scl,
> - cb_data);
The callback used to be only dependent on INTEL_SIP_SMC_STATUS_OK, but
this change put the dependency on res.a1 == 0 as well. Please add
comment or add to the commit message the reason for this change.
> - } else {
> - pr_debug("%s: secure world busy, polling again\n",
> - __func__);
> +
> + if (buf_claim_count < 4) {
> + buf_claim_addr[buf_claim_count] = svc_pa_to_va(res.a1);
> + buf_claim_count++;
> + }
> +
> + if (res.a2 && buf_claim_count < 4) {
> + buf_claim_addr[buf_claim_count] = svc_pa_to_va(res.a2);
> + buf_claim_count++;
> + }
> + if (res.a3 && buf_claim_count < 4) {
> + buf_claim_addr[buf_claim_count] = svc_pa_to_va(res.a3);
> + buf_claim_count++;
> + }
Could there be a case where buf_claim_count >= 4, if so you should add a
WARN_ON.
> +
> }
> } while (res.a0 == INTEL_SIP_SMC_STATUS_OK ||
> res.a0 == INTEL_SIP_SMC_STATUS_BUSY ||
> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> index 0a295ccf1644..4fea9458f92b 100644
> --- a/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> +++ b/drivers/fpga/stratix10-soc.c
> @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ static void s10_receive_callback(struct stratix10_svc_client *client,
> u32 status;
> int i;
>
> + pr_debug("%s data %x\n", __func__, data->status);
Use %#x would be more informative for a status bitmask.
> WARN_ONCE(!data, "%s: stratix10_svc_rc_data = NULL", __func__);
>
> status = data->status;
> @@ -163,6 +164,7 @@ static void s10_receive_callback(struct stratix10_svc_client *client,
> s10_unlock_bufs(priv, data->kaddr1);
> s10_unlock_bufs(priv, data->kaddr2);
> s10_unlock_bufs(priv, data->kaddr3);
> + s10_unlock_bufs(priv, data->kaddr4);
> }
>
> complete(&priv->status_return_completion);
> @@ -309,15 +311,8 @@ static int s10_ops_write(struct fpga_manager *mgr, const char *buf,
> break;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * If callback hasn't already happened, wait for buffers to be
> - * returned from service layer
> - */
> - wait_status = 1; /* not timed out */
> - if (!priv->status)
> - wait_status = wait_for_completion_timeout(
> - &priv->status_return_completion,
> - S10_BUFFER_TIMEOUT);
> + wait_status = wait_for_completion_timeout(&priv->status_return_completion,
> + S10_BUFFER_TIMEOUT);
Can you add a comment why you remove the check for !priv->status to call
wait_for_completion_timeout() ?
>
> if (test_and_clear_bit(SVC_STATUS_BUFFER_DONE, &priv->status) ||
> test_and_clear_bit(SVC_STATUS_BUFFER_SUBMITTED,
> @@ -353,7 +348,10 @@ static int s10_ops_write_complete(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> unsigned long timeout;
> int ret;
>
> - timeout = usecs_to_jiffies(info->config_complete_timeout_us);
> + /* The time taken to process this is close to 600ms
nit: comment style is wrong
> + * This MUST be increased over 1 second
> + */
> + timeout = S10_RECONFIG_TIMEOUT;
>
> do {
> reinit_completion(&priv->status_return_completion);
> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h
> index d290060f4c73..abe04f4fad1d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h
> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/intel/stratix10-svc-client.h
> @@ -68,8 +68,8 @@
> * timeout value used in Stratix10 FPGA manager driver.
> * timeout value used in RSU driver
> */
> -#define SVC_RECONFIG_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS 300
> -#define SVC_RECONFIG_BUFFER_TIMEOUT_MS 720
> +#define SVC_RECONFIG_REQUEST_TIMEOUT_MS 5000
> +#define SVC_RECONFIG_BUFFER_TIMEOUT_MS 5000
These are huge jumps in timeout values. You may be masking real firmware
hangs. Please document why such a large change.
Dinh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-25 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-10 7:16 [PATCH] firmware: stratix10-svc: support up to 4 buffer claims and extend timeout adrianhoyin.ng
2026-02-25 19:36 ` Dinh Nguyen [this message]
2026-02-26 6:14 ` Xu Yilun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6c64c903-0df0-4838-954f-4c82baf48971@kernel.org \
--to=dinguyen@kernel.org \
--cc=adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com \
--cc=linux-fpga@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mdf@kernel.org \
--cc=tiensung.ang@altera.com \
--cc=trix@redhat.com \
--cc=yilun.xu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox