Re: [PATCH v1 0/7] MPFS system controller/mailbox fixes

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4070 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 10:01:41AM -0600, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 7:45 AM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> > In order to differentiate between the service succeeding & the system
> > controller being inoperative or otherwise unable to function, I had to
> > switch the controller to poll a busy bit in the system controller's
> > registers to see if it has completed a service.
> > This makes sense anyway, as the interrupt corresponds to "data ready"
> > rather than "tx done", so I have changed the mailbox controller driver
> > to do that & left the interrupt solely for signalling data ready.
> > It just so happened that all of the services that I had worked with and
> > tested up to this point were "infallible" & did not set a status, so the
> > particular code paths were never tested.
> >
> > Jassi, the mailbox and soc patches depend on each other, as the change
> > in what the interrupt is used for requires changing the client driver's
> > behaviour too, as mbox_send_message() will now return when the system
> > controller is no longer busy rather than when the data is ready.
> > I'm happy to send the lot via the soc tree with your Ack and/or reivew,
> > if that also works you?
> >
> Ok, let me review them and get back to you.

FYI, I did sent a v2 on Friday:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230120143734.3438755-1-conor.dooley@microchip.com/

The change is just a timeout duration though.

> > Secondly, I have a question about what to do if a service does fail, but
> > not due to a timeout - eg the above example where the "new" image for
> > the FPGA is actually older than the one that currently exists.
> > Ideally, if a service fails due to something other than the transaction
> > timing out, I would go and read the status registers to see what the
> > cause of failure was.
> > I could not find a function in the mailbox framework that allows the
> > client to request that sort of information from the client. Trying to
> > do something with the auxiliary bus, or exporting some function to a
> > device specific header seemed like a circumvention of the mailbox
> > framework.
> > Do you think it would be a good idea to implement something like
> > mbox_client_peek_status(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data) to allow
> > clients to request this type of information?
> >
> .last_tx_done() is supposed to make sure everything is ok.

Hm, might've explained badly as I think you've misunderstood. Or (see
below) I might have mistakenly thought that last_tx_done() was only meant
to signify that tx was done.

Anyways, I'll try to clarify.
Some services don't set a status, but whether a status is, or isn't,
set has nothing to do with whether the service has completed.
One service that sets a status is "Authenticate Bitstream". This
service sets a status of 0x0 if the bitstream in question is okay _and_
something that the FPGA can be upgraded to. It returns a failure of 0x18
if the bitstream is valid _but_ is the same as that currently programmed.
(and of course a whole host of other possible errors in-between)

These statuses, and whether they are a bad outcome or not, is dependant
on the service and I don't think should be handled in the mailbox
controller driver.

> If the expected status bit is "sometimes not set", that means that bit
> is not the complete status.

If the "busy" bit goes low, then the transmission must be complete,
there should be no need to check other bits for *completion*, but...

> You have to check multiple registers to
> detect if and what caused the failure.

...maybe I have just misunderstood the role of .last_tx_done(). The
comment in mailbox-controller.h lead me to believe that it was used just
to check if it had been completed.

Am I allowed to use .last_tx_done() to pass information back to the
mailbox client? If I could, that'd certainly be a nice way to get the
information on whether the service failed etc.

Hopefully that, plus when you have a chance to look at the code, will
make what I am asking about a little clearer!

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv