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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED60C433E0 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25F6A64E27 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 09:36:25 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 25F6A64E27 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:58640 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9PRX-0008RO-Vd for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 04:36:24 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44304) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9PQO-0007l9-DB; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 04:35:12 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-x233.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::233]:34737) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9PQL-0005u6-GJ; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 04:35:12 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-x233.google.com with SMTP id r23so19539395ljh.1; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 01:35:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=FskOPh5wEB2DaxwNjo7cOq9d8SHcTlq4OVCtCfSPb+s=; b=BhCB7/ymr7cvQsJW50pSu4e8FGtS5do76MTgTRHr96hXRa3eBn711GB7PH+bBmKT3e gk/ENMBAZTmjhR5J4j28rw7fmRSAHJYU9wqukxRhP329QotQL5Xg7lDk/jJxim6iujxs OPGablsMTfRM6JFgS/atz05wJznctdrzd1n7OjHAUNySNC5sxSN+aw8yLkd2P6UMN+s+ 20A6rQNOpW6skZtQJoYk6vsYkMV5TihYZlb9AlPLK1Xh6rfAQ/DrY8Ky7Oecxbb6bZdd vTVKMW52IXLjzN9OwfAbP+DypPizRC8f3GaoW31nlZvCe0Npt3YxYhnQjvc/mdq1gT/f TU/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=FskOPh5wEB2DaxwNjo7cOq9d8SHcTlq4OVCtCfSPb+s=; b=JYhmiPs372/qtECxldQXCaYoGWuAlnqC77kQ5XEOFq2z92RFCMJ9V6l+a3GOC8rv6X p+3enOY+QZdQgf/aSW9WieRhZ/rJbljrNTd7ofO6mhmMuJwhrjdV2SBcjPfXNfeqBui/ NqKMeR+f2dv1DzACZWXUcZxS4DfcAsWvW7L1jgITRJFB2SBn15Z6IE8AJul+baA9s+H/ LGhfvcw+xWL99l8VR1FvkCrFWfnNwqiew2ugTOn7P6aLDoV/Oyupq/NVo1QNlT4F+H+r f+M5uKqKqdYFasCq/5mdnpFa3RVucedv2H2NdNPh/L1FyLzFHTMlSDPr5WNzHwfIwusR eDZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533b8Tzh2xQ4fSrXhh6H9FZu8aXLJFtFh+5Md6ZAXes3bQxXAVU5 0H3uyFhyeA310gAdF2Bkw0U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYchJUO/vQ9Xm4qwVLt065DFg+IulmYlC7/ZwZhq9XJZ0gm/NECQ/eDnylm+1quV6/isu+ZA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:88d4:: with SMTP id a20mr9077072ljk.303.1612863305655; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 01:35:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from fralle-msi (31-208-27-151.cust.bredband2.com. [31.208.27.151]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d10sm455143lji.17.2021.02.09.01.35.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Feb 2021 01:35:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:35:02 +0100 From: Francisco Iglesias To: "Edgar E. Iglesias" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] hw/block: m25p80: Fix the mess of dummy bytes needed for fast read commands Message-ID: <20210209093501.GA19920@fralle-msi> References: <20210118100557.GA11373@fralle-msi> <20210119130113.GA28306@fralle-msi> <20210121085006.GA10391@fralle-msi> <20210121141844.GC10391@fralle-msi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::233; envelope-from=frasse.iglesias@gmail.com; helo=mail-lj1-x233.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -1020 X-Spam_score: -102.1 X-Spam_bar: --------------------------------------------------- X-Spam_report: (-102.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Qemu-block , Andrew Jeffery , Bin Meng , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Havard Skinnemoen , Tyrone Ting , Max Reitz , Alistair Francis , =?iso-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric?= Le Goater , Joe Komlodi , Bin Meng , qemu-arm , Joel Stanley Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Hello Edgar, On [2021 Feb 08] Mon 16:30:00, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 3:42 PM Bin Meng wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:18 PM Francisco Iglesias > wrote: > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > On [2021 Jan 21] Thu 16:59:51, Bin Meng wrote: > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:50 PM Francisco Iglesias > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bin, > > > > > > > > On [2021 Jan 20] Wed 22:20:25, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 9:01 PM Francisco Iglesias > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > > > > > On [2021 Jan 18] Mon 20:32:19, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:06 PM Francisco Iglesias > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On [2021 Jan 15] Fri 22:38:18, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:26 PM Francisco Iglesias > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On [2021 Jan 15] Fri 10:07:52, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 2:13 AM Francisco Iglesias > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On [2021 Jan 14] Thu 23:08:53, Bin Meng wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Bin Meng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The m25p80 model uses s->needed_bytes to > indicate how many follow-up > > > > > > > > > > > > > bytes are expected to be received after it > receives a command. For > > > > > > > > > > > > > example, depending on the address mode, either > 3-byte address or > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4-byte address is needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For fast read family commands, some dummy cycles > are required after > > > > > > > > > > > > > sending the address bytes, and the dummy cycles > need to be counted > > > > > > > > > > > > > in s->needed_bytes. This is where the mess > began. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the variable name (needed_bytes) indicates, > the unit is in byte. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is not in bit, or cycle. However for some > reason the model has > > > > > > > > > > > > > been using the number of dummy cycles for > s->needed_bytes. The right > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach is to convert the number of dummy > cycles to bytes based on > > > > > > > > > > > > > the SPI protocol, for example, 6 dummy cycles > for the Fast Read Quad > > > > > > > > > > > > > I/O (EBh) should be converted to 3 bytes per the > formula (6 * 4 / 8). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While not being the original implementor I must > assume that above solution was > > > > > > > > > > > > considered but not chosen by the developers due to > it is inaccuracy (it > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be possible to model exacly 6 dummy > cycles, only a multiple of 8, > > > > > > > > > > > > meaning that if the controller is wrongly > programmed to generate 7 the error > > > > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be caught and the controller will still > be considered "correct"). Now > > > > > > > > > > > > that we have this detail in the implementation I'm > in favor of keeping it, this > > > > > > > > > > > > also because the detail is already in use for > catching exactly above error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found no clue from the commit message that my > proposed solution here > > > > > > > > > > > was ever considered, otherwise all SPI controller > models supporting > > > > > > > > > > > software generation should have been found out > seriously broken long > > > > > > > > > > > time ago! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The controllers you are referring to might lack > support for commands requiring > > > > > > > > > > dummy clock cycles but I really hope they work with > the other commands? If so I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure why you view dummy clock cycles as > something special > > > > > > > > > that needs some special support from the SPI controller. > For the case > > > > > > > > > 1 controller, it's nothing special from the controller > perspective, > > > > > > > > > just like sending out a command, or address bytes, or > data. The > > > > > > > > > controller just shifts data bit by bit from its tx fifo > and that's it. > > > > > > > > > In the Xilinx GQSPI controller case, the dummy cycles > can either be > > > > > > > > > sent via a regular data (the case 1 controller) in the > tx fifo, or > > > > > > > > > automatically generated (case 2 controller) by the > hardware. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll try to explain my view point a little > differently. For that we also > > > > > > > > need to keep in mind that QEMU models HW, and any binary > that runs on a HW > > > > > > > > board supported in QEMU should ideally run on that board > inside QEMU aswell > > > > > > > > (this can be a bare metal application equaly well as a > modified u-boot/Linux > > > > > > > > using SPI commands with a non multiple of 8 number of > dummy clock cycles). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once functionality has been introduced into QEMU it is not > easy to know which > > > > > > > > intentional or untentional features provided by the > functionality are being > > > > > > > > used by users. One of the (perhaps not well known) > features I'm aware of that > > > > > > > > is in use and is provided by the accurate dummy clock > cycle modeling inside > > > > > > > > m25p80 is the be ability to test drivers accurately > regarding the dummy clock > > > > > > > > cycles (even when using commands with a non-multiple of 8 > number of dummy clock > > > > > > > > cycles), but there might be others aswell. So by removing > this functionality > > > > > > > > above use case will brake, this since those test will not > be reliable. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, since users tend to be creative it is not > possible to know if > > > > > > > > there are other use cases that will be affected. This > means that in case [1] > > > > > > > > needs to be followed the safe path is to add functionality > instead of removing. > > > > > > > > Luckily it also easier in this case, see below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand there might be users other than U-Boot/Linux > that use an > > > > > > > odd number of dummy bits (not multiple of 8). If your > concern was > > > > > > > about model behavior changes, sure I can update > > > > > > > qemu/docs/system/deprecated.rst to mention that some flashes > in the > > > > > > > m25p80 model now implement dummy cycles as bytes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, something like that. My concern is that since this > functionality has been > > > > > > in tree for while, users have found known or unknown features > that got > > > > > > introduced by it. By removing the functionality (and the > known/uknown features) > > > > > > we are riscing to brake our user's use cases (currently I'm > aware of one > > > > > > feature/use case but it is not unlikely that there are more). > [1] states that > > > > > > "In general features are intended to be supported indefinitely > once introduced > > > > > > into QEMU", to me that makes very much sense because the > opposite would mean > > > > > > that we were not reliable. So in case [1] needs to be honored > it looks to be > > > > > > safer to add functionality instead of removing (and riscing > the removal of use > > > > > > cases/features). Luckily I still believe in this case that it > will be easier to > > > > > > go forward (even if I also agree on what you are saying below > about what I > > > > > > proposed). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if the implementation is buggy and we need to keep the > buggy > > > > > implementation forever? I think that's why > > > > > qemu/docs/system/deprecated.rst was created for deprecating such > > > > > feature. > > > > > > > > With the RFC I posted all commands in m25p80 are working for both > the case 1 > > > > controller (using a txfifo) and the case 2 controller (no txfifo, > as GQSPI). > > > > Because of this, I, with all respect, will have to disagree that > this is buggy. > > > > > > Well, the existing m25p80 implementation that uses dummy cycle > > > accuracy for those flashes prevents all SPI controllers that use tx > > > fifo to work with those flashes. Hence it is buggy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't think it is fair to call them 'seriously broken' > (and else we should > > > > > > > > > > probably let the maintainers know about it). Most > likely the lack of support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I called it "seriously broken" because current > implementation only > > > > > > > > > considered one type of SPI controllers while completely > ignoring the > > > > > > > > > other type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we change view and see this from the perspective of > m25p80, it models the > > > > > > > > commands a certain way and provides an API that the SPI > controllers need to > > > > > > > > implement for interacting with it. It is true that there > are SPI controllers > > > > > > > > referred to above that do not support the portion of that > API that corresponds > > > > > > > > to commands with dummy clock cycles, but I don't think it > is true that this is > > > > > > > > broken since there is also one SPI controller that has a > working implementation > > > > > > > > of m25p80's full API also when transfering through a tx > fifo (use case 1). But > > > > > > > > as mentioned above, by doing a minor extension and > improvement to m25p80's API > > > > > > > > and allow for toggling the accuracy from dummy clock > cycles to dummy bytes [1] > > > > > > > > will still be honored as in the same time making it > possible to have full > > > > > > > > support for the API in the SPI controllers that currently > do not (please reread > > > > > > > > the proposal in my previous reply that attempts to do > this). I myself see this > > > > > > > > as win/win situation, also because no controller should > need modifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid your proposal does not work. Your proposed new > device > > > > > > > property 'model_dummy_bytes' to select to convert the > accurate dummy > > > > > > > clock cycle count to dummy bytes inside m25p80, is hard to > justify as > > > > > > > a property to the flash itself, as the behavior is tightly > coupled to > > > > > > > how the SPI controller works. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree on above. I decided though that instead of posting > sample code in here > > > > > > I'll post an RFC with hopefully an improved proposal. I'll cc > you. About below, > > > > > > Xilinx ZynqMP GQSPI should not need any modication in a first > step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait, (see below) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look at the Xilinx GQSPI controller, which > supports both > > > > > > > use cases, that the dummy cycles can be transferred via tx > fifo, or > > > > > > > generated by the controller automatically. Please read the > example > > > > > > > given in: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >     table 24‐22, an example of Generic FIFO Contents for > Quad I/O Read > > > > > > > Command (EBh) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > https://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/user_guides/ug1085-zynq-ultrascale-trm.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you choose to set the m25p80 device property > 'model_dummy_bytes' to > > > > > > > true when working with the Xilinx GQSPI controller, you are > bound to > > > > > > > only allow guest software to use tx fifo to transfer the > dummy cycles, > > > > > > > and this is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You missed this part. I looked at your RFC, and as I mentioned > above > > > > > your proposal cannot support the complicated controller like > Xilinx > > > > > GQSPI. Please read the example of table 24-22. With your RFC, > you > > > > > mandate guest software's GQSPI driver to only use hardware dummy > cycle > > > > > generation, which is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, thank you very much for looking into the RFC series, very > much > > > > appreciated. Secondly, about above, the GQSPI model in QEMU > transfers from 2 > > > > locations in the file, in 1 location the transfer referred to > above is done, in > > > > another location the transfer through the txfifo is done. The > location where > > > > transfer referred to above is done will not need any modifications > (and will > > > > thus work equally well as it does currently). > > > > > > Please explain this a little bit. How does your RFC series handle > > > cases as described in table 24-22, where the 6 dummy cycles are > split > > > into 2 transfers, with one transfer using tx fifo, and the other one > > > using hardware dummy cycle generation? > > > > Sorry, I missunderstod. You are right, that won't work. > > +Edgar E. Iglesias > > So it looks by far the only way to implement dummy cycles correctly to > work with all SPI controller models is what I proposed here in this > patch series. > > Maintainers are quite silent, so I would like to hear your thoughts. > > @Alistair Francis @Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @Peter Maydell would you > please share your thoughts since you are the one who reviewed the > existing dummy implementation (based on commits history) > > Francisco really knows this stuff better than me.... > I would tend to agree that it's unfortunate to model things in cycles, if > we could abstract things at a higher level that would be nice. Without > breaking existing use-cases. > Francisco, is it impossible to bring up the abstraction level to bytes and > keep existing use-cases? Great question, I'm leaning on that it shouldn't be impossible to be honest (but I haven't been able to try anything yet though). Best regards, Francisco Iglesias > We have a bunch of test-cases, We'll publish some of them in source code, > others we can't publish since they use proprietary SW we're not allowed to > publish at all, but we can run tests and Ack if things work. > Best regards, > Edgar