Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace version

Suman Anna
2020-05-21T19:42:25Z

Hi Bjorn,

On 5/21/20 1:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 25 Mar 13:47 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
>
>> Introduce a new trace entry resource structure that accommodates
>> a 64-bit device address to support 64-bit processors. This is to
>> be used using an overloaded version value of 1 in the upper 32-bits
>> of the previous resource type field. The new resource still uses
>> 32-bits for the length field (followed by a 32-bit reserved field,
>> so can be updated in the future), which is a sufficiently large
>> trace buffer size. A 32-bit padding field also had to be added
>> to align the device address on a 64-bit boundary, and match the
>> usage on the firmware side.
>>
>> The remoteproc debugfs logic also has been adjusted accordingly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index 53bc37c508c6..b9a097990862 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -609,21 +609,45 @@ void rproc_vdev_release(struct kref *ref)
>> *
>> * Returns 0 on success, or an appropriate error code otherwise
>> */
>> -static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>> +static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, void *rsc,
>> int offset, int avail, u16 ver)
>> {
>> struct rproc_debug_trace *trace;
>> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>> + struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc1;
>> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *rsc2;
>> char name[15];
>> + size_t rsc_size;
>> + u32 reserved;
>> + u64 da;
>> + u32 len;
>> +
>> + if (!ver) {
>
> This looks like a switch to me, but I also do think this looks rather
> crude, if you spin off the tail of this function and call it from a
> rproc_handle_trace() and rproc_handle_trace64() I believe this would be
> cleaner.

Yeah, ok. Will refactor for this in v2.

>
>> + rsc1 = (struct fw_rsc_trace *)rsc;
>> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc1);
>> + reserved = rsc1->reserved;
>> + da = rsc1->da;
>> + len = rsc1->len;
>> + } else if (ver == 1) {
>> + rsc2 = (struct fw_rsc_trace2 *)rsc;
>> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc2);
>> + reserved = rsc2->reserved;
>> + da = rsc2->da;
>> + len = rsc2->len;
>> + } else {
>> + dev_err(dev, "unsupported trace rsc version %d\n", ver);
>
> If we use "type" to describe your 64-bit-da-trace then this sanity check
> would have been taken care of by the core.
>
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>>
>> - if (sizeof(*rsc) > avail) {
>> + if (rsc_size > avail) {
>> dev_err(dev, "trace rsc is truncated\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> /* make sure reserved bytes are zeroes */
>> - if (rsc->reserved) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes\n");
>> + if (reserved) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes, value = 0x%x\n",
>> + reserved);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -632,8 +656,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> /* set the trace buffer dma properties */
>> - trace->trace_mem.len = rsc->len;
>> - trace->trace_mem.da = rsc->da;
>> + trace->trace_mem.len = len;
>> + trace->trace_mem.da = da;
>>
>> /* set pointer on rproc device */
>> trace->rproc = rproc;
>> @@ -652,8 +676,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc,
>>
>> rproc->num_traces++;
>>
>> - dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%x, len 0x%x\n",
>> - name, rsc->da, rsc->len);
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%llx, len 0x%x\n",
>> + name, da, len);
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>> index 3560eed7a360..ff43736db45a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
>> @@ -192,7 +192,8 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p)
>> struct resource_table *table = rproc->table_ptr;
>> struct fw_rsc_carveout *c;
>> struct fw_rsc_devmem *d;
>> - struct fw_rsc_trace *t;
>> + struct fw_rsc_trace *t1;
>> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *t2;
>> struct fw_rsc_vdev *v;
>> int i, j;
>>
>> @@ -205,6 +206,7 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p)
>> int offset = table->offset[i];
>> struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr = (void *)table + offset;
>> void *rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr);
>> + u16 ver = hdr->st.v;
>>
>> switch (hdr->st.t) {
>> case RSC_CARVEOUT:
>> @@ -230,13 +232,32 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p)
>> seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", d->name);
>> break;
>> case RSC_TRACE:
>> - t = rsc;
>> - seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is of type %s\n",
>> - i, types[hdr->st.t]);
>> - seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n", t->da);
>> - seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n", t->len);
>> - seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n", t->reserved);
>> - seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t->name);
>> + if (ver == 0) {
>
> Again, this is a switch, here in a switch. Just defining a new
> RSC_TRACE64 type would reduce the amount of code here...

OK.

>
>> + t1 = rsc;
>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n",
>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n",
>> + t1->da);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n",
>> + t1->len);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n",
>> + t1->reserved);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t1->name);
>> + } else if (ver == 1) {
>> + t2 = rsc;
>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n",
>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%llx\n",
>> + t2->da);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n",
>> + t2->len);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n",
>> + t2->reserved);
>> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t2->name);
>> + } else {
>> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is an unsupported version %d of type %s\n",
>> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]);
>> + }
>> break;
>> case RSC_VDEV:
>> v = rsc;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> index 526d3cb45e37..3b3bea42f8b1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> @@ -243,6 +243,32 @@ struct fw_rsc_trace {
>> u8 name[32];
>> } __packed;
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct fw_rsc_trace2 - trace buffer declaration supporting 64-bits
>> + * @padding: initial padding after type field for aligned 64-bit access
>> + * @da: device address (64-bit)
>> + * @len: length (in bytes)
>> + * @reserved: reserved (must be zero)
>> + * @name: human-readable name of the trace buffer
>> + *
>> + * This resource entry is an enhanced version of the fw_rsc_trace resourec entry
>> + * and the provides equivalent functionality but designed for 64-bit remote
>> + * processors.
>> + *
>> + * @da specifies the device address of the buffer, @len specifies
>> + * its size, and @name may contain a human readable name of the trace buffer.
>> + *
>> + * After booting the remote processor, the trace buffers are exposed to the
>> + * user via debugfs entries (called trace0, trace1, etc..).
>> + */
>> +struct fw_rsc_trace2 {
>
> Sounds more like fw_rsc_trace64 to me - in particular since the version
> of trace2 is 1...

Yeah, will rename this.

>
>> + u32 padding;
>> + u64 da;
>> + u32 len;
>> + u32 reserved;
>
> What's the purpose of this reserved field?

Partly to make sure the entire resource is aligned on an 8-byte, and
partly copied over from fw_rsc_trace entry. I guess 32-bits is already
large enough of a size for trace entries irrespective of 32-bit or
64-bit traces, so I doubt if we want to make the len field also a u64.

regards
Suman

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
>> + u8 name[32];
>> +} __packed;
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct fw_rsc_vdev_vring - vring descriptor entry
>> * @da: device address
>> --
>> 2.23.0
>>