From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECB4C433EF for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348592AbiCKMXF (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:23:05 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47998 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238228AbiCKMWz (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2022 07:22:55 -0500 Received: from mailgw01.mediatek.com (unknown [60.244.123.138]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9168A1B2AEB; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 04:21:51 -0800 (PST) X-UUID: 38a4f557e8c244fba8e099cd23d0d93b-20220311 X-UUID: 38a4f557e8c244fba8e099cd23d0d93b-20220311 Received: from mtkexhb02.mediatek.inc [(172.21.101.103)] by mailgw01.mediatek.com (envelope-from ) (Generic MTA with TLSv1.2 ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 256/256) with ESMTP id 236184143; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:21:30 +0800 Received: from mtkcas10.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.39) by mtkmbs10n1.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.2.792.15; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:21:29 +0800 Received: from mtksdccf07 (172.21.84.99) by mtkcas10.mediatek.inc (172.21.101.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:21:28 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: mediatek: fix side effect of mt8195 sram power on From: Tinghan Shen To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Matthias Brugger CC: , , , , Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 20:21:29 +0800 In-Reply-To: <4974d21c-953c-30c1-8dbf-5826dbb20d8e@collabora.com> References: <20220309114713.8156-1-tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> <4974d21c-953c-30c1-8dbf-5826dbb20d8e@collabora.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MTK: N Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org Hi Angelo, I'll update your suggestions at next version. Thank you. Best regards, Tinghan On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 15:40 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 09/03/22 12:47, Tinghan Shen ha scritto: > > The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. > > These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. > > > > Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are > > placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is > > blocked too. > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. > > > > This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > > L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time > > blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have > > to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access > > EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected > > behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at > > the same time. > > > > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 4 +++ > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > index 5ff3867c72f3..27e7172c926d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > @@ -51,6 +51,10 @@ > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 > > > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS 0xF0 > > This is GENMASK(7, 4).. > > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_BITS \ > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS > > + > > Why are you defining the same thing twice? > Please drop this. > > > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 > > #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > index dcddb33e9997..4d75af856fd1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > @@ -365,22 +365,32 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > { > > int i; > > > > for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) > > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > > writel(0, addr); > > } > > > > -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > { > > int i; > > > > writel(0, addr); > > for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) > > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > > +} > > + > > +static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > +{ > > + scp_sram_power_on(addr, 0); > > +} > > + > > +static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > +{ > > + scp_sram_power_off(addr, 0); > > } > > > > static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > @@ -403,6 +413,27 @@ static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > +{ > > + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ > > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); > > + > > + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); > > + > > + /* enable SRAM clock */ > > + mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0); > > At this point, you can simply use scp_sram_power_{on, off} instead of defining > a new function for just one call... I get that your intent here is to enhance > human readability, but I don't think that this is really happening with that and, > if it is, it's just about a little ignorable difference. > > Please use scp_sram_power_on() and scp_sram_power_off() directly. > > scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > ... etc :) > > > + mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1); > > + mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2); > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_BITS); > > + mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD); > > + > > + /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ > > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > Please remember to add me to the Cc's for the next version, so that I will be > able to timely give you my R-b tag for this one. > > Regards, > Angelo > >