Re: [PATCH -next] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add suspend and resume support

[Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>]

[ +Marc for MSI bits ]

On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
> 
> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
> the registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
> ---
> 
>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>   
>   static bool disable_msipolling;
>   module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
> +static bool bypass;
>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
>   	"Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>   
> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
>   	doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
>   	doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>   
> +	/* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
> +	if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
> +		desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
> +		desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
> +		desc->msg.data = msg->data;
> +	}

My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe shouldn't 
be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area :/

> +
>   	writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
>   	writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
>   	writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
>   }
>   
> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> +	struct msi_desc *desc;
> +	struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> +
> +	for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
> +		switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
> +		case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
> +		case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
> +		case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
> +			arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
> +			break;
> +		default:
> +			continue;
> +
> +		}
> +	}
> +}
> +
>   static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>   {
>   	struct msi_desc *desc;
> @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>   	devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
>   }
>   
> -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>   {
>   	int irq, ret;
>   
> -	arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> +	if (!resume_mode)
> +		arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> +	else {
> +		/* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
> +		arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
> +		return;

What about wired IRQs?

> +	}
>   
>   	/* Request interrupt lines */
>   	irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
> @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>   	}
>   }
>   
> -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>   {
>   	int ret, irq;
>   	u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
> @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>   		if (ret < 0)
>   			dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
>   	} else
> -		arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
> +		arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>   
>   	if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
>   		irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
> @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)

Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the function. Have 
you even compiled this?

>   {
>   	int ret;
>   	u32 reg, enables;
> @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
>   		}
>   	}
>   
> -	ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
> +	ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>   	if (ret) {
>   		dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
>   		return ret;
> @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
>   	return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
>   }
>   
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
> +	 * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
> +	 */

Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external 
clock-gating?

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> +	arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   {
>   	int irq, ret;
> @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	resource_size_t ioaddr;
>   	struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>   	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> -	bool bypass;

Once again...

>   	smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!smmu)
> @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
>   
>   	/* Reset the device */
> -	ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);

...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its 
own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.

> +	ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
>   	if (ret)
>   		return ret;
>   
> @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>   };
>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>   
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
> +	.suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
> +	.resume = arm_smmu_resume,

Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused 
annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced 
unconditionally.

Robin.

> +};
> +
>   static void arm_smmu_driver_unregister(struct platform_driver *drv)
>   {
>   	arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize();
> @@ -3895,6 +3950,7 @@ static struct platform_driver arm_smmu_driver = {
>   		.name			= "arm-smmu-v3",
>   		.of_match_table		= arm_smmu_of_match,
>   		.suppress_bind_attrs	= true,
> +		.pm			= &arm_smmu_pm_ops,
>   	},
>   	.probe	= arm_smmu_device_probe,
>   	.remove	= arm_smmu_device_remove,
> 
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu