lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 4/6] slim: qcom: Add Qualcomm Slimbus controller driver
On 6/17/2015 7:53 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 07:46:02PM -0600, Sagar Dharia wrote:
>
>> + - dmaengine, and pipes used to communicate between controller and memory if
>> + sps-BAM HW is used
> This needs more detail.
>> + */
>> + mb();
>> + if (notify_rx)
>> + complete(&dev->rx_msgq_notify);
>> + }
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> This interrupt handler unconditionally returns IRQ_HANDLED regardless of
> if that's true or not.

Some interrupt handling is done in ISR itself. RX-msgq thread
notifier/workQ is only used for items that can sleep/operations that can
take longer. (e.g. assignment of logical address based on report_present
message)
That's the reason IRQ_HANDLED is always true here.
>
>> +static void msm_slim_wait_retry(struct msm_slim_ctrl *dev)
>> +{
>> + int msec_per_frm = 0;
>> + int sfr_per_sec;
>> +
>> + /* Wait for 1 superframe, or default time and then retry */
>> + sfr_per_sec = dev->framer.superfreq /
>> + (1 << (SLIM_MAX_CLK_GEAR - dev->ctrl.clkgear));
>> + if (sfr_per_sec)
>> + msec_per_frm = MSEC_PER_SEC / sfr_per_sec;
>> + if (msec_per_frm < DEF_RETRY_MS)
>> + msec_per_frm = DEF_RETRY_MS;
>> + msleep(msec_per_frm);
>> +}
> Is this device specific?

This is seen on most of the Qualcomm-controllers I've worked with, where
retries in early initialization were needed to avoid issues due to noise.
>
>> +static void msm_slim_cb(void *ctx, int err)
>> +{
>> + if (err)
>> + pr_err("MSM-slim completion reported err:%d\n", err);
> dev_err()?
>
>> + else if (ctx)
>> + complete(ctx);
>> +}
> That's weird, if we get an error we don't signal whatever's waiting -
> won't it just time out at best then? Also, what happens if we get
> neither an error nor context?
>
>> + if (txn->msg->wbuf)
>> + memcpy(puc, txn->msg->wbuf, txn->msg->num_bytes);
>> + msm_slim_queue_tx(dev, pbuf, txn->rl, MGR_TX_MSG);
>> + timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(&done,
>> + msecs_to_jiffies(txn->rl + 100));
>> +
>> + if (!timeout)
>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "TX timed out:MC:0x%x,mt:0x%x\n", txn->mc,
>> + txn->mt);
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->txn_lock);
>> + return timeout ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT;
>> +}
> Shouldn't we provide a route for error reports here (and might some of
> this timeout stuff go into the core)?

Sure, good point. If I move it to core, all controllers will be expected
to have 'write-done' notification. If that's a fair assumption, I will
move it to core.
That will also mean the above callback/completion will move to framework.
>
>> +
>> + if ((msm_slim_put_rx(dev, (u8 *)buf)) != -ENODATA) {
>> + len = buf[0] & 0x1F;
>> + mt = (buf[0] >> 5) & 0x7;
>> + mc = buf[1];
>> + if (mt == SLIM_MSG_MT_CORE &&
>> + mc == SLIM_MSG_MC_REPORT_PRESENT) {
> Looks like a switch statement.
>
>> +static int msm_slim_rx_msgq_thread(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct msm_slim_ctrl *dev = (struct msm_slim_ctrl *)data;
>> + struct completion *notify = &dev->rx_msgq_notify;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>> + ret = wait_for_completion_interruptible(notify);
>> +
>> + if (ret)
>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "rx thread wait error:%d\n", ret);
>> + else
>> + msm_slim_rxwq(dev);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
> It's not entirely clear to me why this is a kthread rather than a
> workqueue or something. I'm also unclear what happens if more than one
> piece of work is queued prior to msm_slim_rxwq() running, it looks like
> it only handles a single operation.

Sure, I will change this to workqueue. That should not be a problem.
>
>> + /* SLEW RATE register for this slimbus */
>> + dev->slew_mem = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> + "slimbus_slew_reg");
>> + if (!dev->slew_mem) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no slimbus slew resource\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
> Warning not an error isn't it?
>
>> + hclk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, "iface_clk");
>> + if (IS_ERR(hclk))
>> + return PTR_ERR(hclk);
> devm_clk_get()
>
>> + ret = clk_set_rate(rclk, SLIM_ROOT_FREQ);
> You're ignoring this error in spite of assigning to ret.
>
>> + slim_mem = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> + "slimbus_physical");
>> + if (!slim_mem) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no slimbus physical memory resource\n");
>> + ret = ENODEV;
>> + goto err_get_mem_failed;
>> + }
>> + slim_io = request_mem_region(slim_mem->start, resource_size(slim_mem),
>> + pdev->name);
>> + if (!slim_io) {
>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "slimbus memory already claimed\n");
>> + ret = EBUSY;
>> + goto err_get_mem_failed;
>> + }
> devm_ioremap_resource() and a lot of this starts looking simpler.
>
>> + dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct msm_slim_ctrl), GFP_KERNEL);
> devm_kzalloc()
>
>> + if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
>> +
>> + ret = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "cell-index",
>> + &dev->ctrl.nr);
> Was that in the binding?
>
>> + /* Register with framework before enabling frame, clock */
>> + ret = slim_add_numbered_controller(&dev->ctrl);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev->dev, "error adding controller\n");
>> + goto err_ctrl_failed;
>> + }
> This is suspicious - why are you adding a numbered controller with DT?
> And looking at this interface why is it a separate call to add a
> numbered controller, why not just register the controller using the same
> API and handle any number that was set when doing that?

Agreed, I will change add_numbered_controller to register_controller.
That will also mean the 'cell-index' property above is not needed.
>
>> + dev->ver = readl_relaxed(dev->base);
>> + /* Version info in 16 MSbits */
>> + dev->ver >>= 16;
>> + /* Component register initialization */
>> + writel_relaxed(1, dev->base + CFG_PORT(COMP_CFG, dev->ver));
>> + writel_relaxed((EE_MGR_RSC_GRP | EE_NGD_2 | EE_NGD_1),
>> + dev->base + CFG_PORT(COMP_TRUST_CFG, dev->ver));
> You've registered the device with the core prior to initialising the
> hardware - I'd expect this means the generic code will start trying to
> register slaves immediately. The normal pattern would be to initialise
> the hardware then register it.

This is for handling the logical-address assignment. That's only
possible after registering controller.
The internal controller has 2 in-built slimbus devices (interface,
framer) which will start to report-present right-away if I initialize
the HW. Now if register_controller is not done, the logical-address
assignment will not happen and as per spec, the devices will keep
sending report_present until they get an assignment.

Registering slaves immediately is not an issue since that part will not
be waiting on logical-address assignment (due to device_up callback)
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>> +static int msm_slim_suspend(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int msm_slim_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
> Omit empty functions.
>
>> +static int msm_slim_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&msm_slim_driver);
>> +}
>> +module_init(msm_slim_init);
> module_platform_driver().
>
>> +u8 *msm_slim_get_tx(struct msm_slim_ctrl *dev, struct msm_wr_cb *cur)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int idx;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->tx.lock, flags);
>> + if (((dev->tx.head + 1) % MSM_TX_MSGS) == dev->tx.tail) {
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->tx.lock, flags);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> + idx = dev->tx.tail;
>> + dev->tx.tail = (dev->tx.tail + 1) % MSM_TX_MSGS;
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->tx.lock, flags);
>> + dev->pending_wr[idx] = cur;
>> + return dev->tx.base + (idx * SLIM_MSGQ_BUF_LEN);
>> +}
> Would just using a regular list hurt?

This provides O(1) circular buffer access rather than a list with O(n).
I will address other comments and upload patch later today/tomorrow.

Thanks for your comments
Sagar


--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-28 21:41    [W:0.078 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site