Re: [RFC 2/7] mailbox: Add support for QTI CPUCP mailbox controller

Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-01-17T19:04:05Z

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:36, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> Add support for CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox controller,
> this driver enables communication between AP and CPUCP by acting as
> a doorbell between them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/mailbox/Kconfig | 8 +
> drivers/mailbox/Makefile | 2 +
> drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c | 265 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> index 42940108a187..23741a6f054e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> @@ -273,6 +273,14 @@ config SPRD_MBOX
> to send message between application processors and MCU. Say Y here if
> you want to build the Spreatrum mailbox controller driver.
>
> +config QCOM_CPUCP_MBOX
> + tristate "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. CPUCP mailbox driver"
> + depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST
> + help
> + Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. CPUSS Control Processor (CPUCP) mailbox
> + controller driver enables communication between AP and CPUCP. Say
> + Y here if you want to build this driver.
> +
> config QCOM_IPCC
> tristate "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. IPCC driver"
> depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> index 18793e6caa2f..53b512800bde 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> @@ -59,4 +59,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SUN6I_MSGBOX) += sun6i-msgbox.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_SPRD_MBOX) += sprd-mailbox.o
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_CPUCP_MBOX) += qcom-cpucp-mbox.o
> +
> obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IPCC) += qcom-ipcc.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..22ea6c802286
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2024, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/irq.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED 3
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF 0x4
> +
> +/* Tx Registers */
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_IDR 0
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_CMD 0x100
> +
> +/* Rx Registers */
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_IDR 0
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD 0x100
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP 0x4000
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_STAT 0x4400
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR 0x4800
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN 0x4C00
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD_MASK 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
> +
> +/**
> + * struct qcom_cpucp_mbox - Holder for the mailbox driver
> + * @chans: The mailbox channel
> + * @mbox: The mailbox controller
> + * @tx_base: Base address of the CPUCP tx registers
> + * @rx_base: Base address of the CPUCP rx registers
> + * @dev: Device associated with this instance
> + * @irq: CPUCP to AP irq
> + */
> +struct qcom_cpucp_mbox {
> + struct mbox_chan chans[APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED];
> + struct mbox_controller mbox;
> + void __iomem *tx_base;
> + void __iomem *rx_base;
> + struct device *dev;
> + int irq;
> + int num_chan;
> +};
> +
> +static irqreturn_t qcom_cpucp_mbox_irq_fn(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = data;
> + u64 status;
> + u32 val;
> + int i;
> +
> + status = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_STAT);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cpucp->num_chan; i++) {
> + val = 0;
> + if (status & ((u64)1 << i)) {
> + val = readl(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD + (i * 8) + APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF);
> + if (!IS_ERR(cpucp->chans[i].con_priv))
> + mbox_chan_received_data(&cpucp->chans[i], &val);

Why do you need a check? Can mailbox cope with unallocated channel instead?

> + writeq(status, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> + unsigned long chan_id = (unsigned long)chan->con_priv;
> + u64 val;
> +
> + val = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> + val |= ((u64)1 << chan_id);

BIT()

> + writeq(val, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void qcom_cpucp_mbox_shutdown(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> + unsigned long chan_id = (unsigned long)chan->con_priv;
> + u64 val;
> +
> + val = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> + val &= ~((u64)1 << chan_id);

BIT()

> + writeq(val, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +
> + chan->con_priv = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> + unsigned long chan_id = (unsigned long)chan->con_priv;
> + u32 val = (unsigned long)data;

Please don't pass an integer as a pointer value.

> +
> + writel(val, cpucp->tx_base + APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_CMD + (chan_id * 8) + APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct mbox_chan *qcom_cpucp_mbox_xlate(struct mbox_controller *mbox,
> + const struct of_phandle_args *sp)
> +{
> + unsigned long ind = sp->args[0];
> +
> + if (sp->args_count != 1)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + if (ind >= mbox->num_chans)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + if (!IS_ERR(mbox->chans[ind].con_priv))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> +
> + mbox->chans[ind].con_priv = (void *)ind;

This seems to be static enough. Can you set it in
qcom_cpucp_setup_mbox() instead?

Then you can use of_mbox_index_xlate() here.

> +
> + return &mbox->chans[ind];
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mbox_chan_ops qcom_cpucp_mbox_chan_ops = {
> + .startup = qcom_cpucp_mbox_startup,
> + .send_data = qcom_cpucp_mbox_send_data,
> + .shutdown = qcom_cpucp_mbox_shutdown
> +};
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_setup_mbox(struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = cpucp->dev;
> + struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> + unsigned long i;
> +
> + /* Initialize channel identifiers */
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cpucp->chans); i++)
> + cpucp->chans[i].con_priv = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + mbox = &cpucp->mbox;
> + mbox->dev = dev;
> + mbox->num_chans = cpucp->num_chan;
> + mbox->chans = cpucp->chans;
> + mbox->ops = &qcom_cpucp_mbox_chan_ops;
> + mbox->of_xlate = qcom_cpucp_mbox_xlate;
> + mbox->txdone_irq = false;
> + mbox->txdone_poll = false;
> +
> + return mbox_controller_register(mbox);
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp;
> + struct resource *res;
> + int ret;
> +
> + cpucp = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cpucp), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cpucp)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cpucp->dev = &pdev->dev;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + if (!res) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get the cpucp rx base address\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + cpucp->rx_base = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, resource_size(res));

devm_of_iomap() here and below.

> + if (!cpucp->rx_base) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to ioremap cpucp tx base\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1);
> + if (!res) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get the cpucp tx base address\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + cpucp->tx_base = devm_ioremap(&pdev->dev, res->start, resource_size(res));
> + if (!cpucp->tx_base) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to ioremap cpucp tx base\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> + writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR);
> + writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP);
> +
> + cpucp->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + if (cpucp->irq < 0) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get the IRQ\n");
> + return cpucp->irq;
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, cpucp->irq, qcom_cpucp_mbox_irq_fn,
> + IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH, "apss_cpucp_mbox", cpucp);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register the irq: %d\n", ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + writeq(APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD_MASK, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP);
> +
> + cpucp->num_chan = APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED;
> + ret = qcom_cpucp_setup_mbox(cpucp);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to create mailbox\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cpucp);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + mbox_controller_unregister(&cpucp->mbox);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "qcom,cpucp-mbox"},

Is there a guarantee that there will be no SoC-specifcs in this driver
in future?

> + {}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver qcom_cpucp_mbox_driver = {
> + .probe = qcom_cpucp_mbox_probe,
> + .remove = qcom_cpucp_mbox_remove,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "qcom_cpucp_mbox",
> + .of_match_table = qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match,
> + .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +static int __init qcom_cpucp_mbox_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = platform_driver_register(&qcom_cpucp_mbox_driver);
> + if (ret)
> + pr_err("%s: qcom_cpucp_mbox register failed %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +module_init(qcom_cpucp_mbox_init);

module_platform_init()

> +
> +static __exit void qcom_cpucp_mbox_exit(void)
> +{
> + platform_driver_unregister(&qcom_cpucp_mbox_driver);
> +}
> +module_exit(qcom_cpucp_mbox_exit);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("QTI CPUCP MBOX Driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>

--
With best wishes
Dmitry