[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 0/7] Add driver support for Data Capture and Compare Engine(DCC) for SM8150,SC7280,SC7180,SDM845

On 1/7/2022 5:35 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 06 Jan 07:20 PST 2022, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
>> On 12/16/2021 9:18 PM, Thara Gopinath wrote:
>>> On 8/10/21 1:54 PM, Souradeep Chowdhury wrote:
>>>> DCC(Data Capture and Compare) is a DMA engine designed for debugging
>>>> purposes.In case of a system
>>>> crash or manual software triggers by the user the DCC hardware
>>>> stores the value at the register
>>>> addresses which can be used for debugging purposes.The DCC driver
>>>> provides the user with sysfs
>>>> interface to configure the register addresses.The options that the
>>>> DCC hardware provides include
>>>> reading from registers,writing to registers,first reading and then
>>>> writing to registers and looping
>>>> through the values of the same register.
>>>> In certain cases a register write needs to be executed for accessing
>>>> the rest of the registers,
>>>> also the user might want to record the changing values of a register
>>>> with time for which he has the
>>>> option to use the loop feature.
>>> Hello Souradeep,
>>> First of all, I think this is very a useful feature to have. I have some
>>> generic design related queries/comments on driver and the interface
>>> exposed to the user space. Also, I do not understand the h/w well here,
>>> so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
>>> 1. Linked list looks like a very internal feature to the h/w. It really
>>> is not an info that user should be aware of. I tried reading the code a
>>> bit. IUC, every time a s/w trigger is issued the configs in all the
>>> enabled linked lists are executed. The final ram dump that you get from
>>> /dev/dcc_sram is a dump of contents from all the enabled list? Is this
>>> understanding correct ? And we are talking of at-most 4 linked list?
>>> If yes, I think it might be better to have a folder per linked list with
>>> config, config_write etc. Also if possible it will be better to dump the
>>> results to a file in the specific folder instead of reading from
>>> /dev/dcc_sram.
>>> If no, there is no real need for user to know the linked list, right?
>>> Choosing of linked list can be done by kernel driver in this case with
>>> no input needed from user.
>>> 2. Now to the sysfs interface itself, I know lot of thought has gone
>>> into sysfs vs debugfs considerations. But, have you considered using
>>> netlink interface instead of sysfs. Netlink interface is used for
>>> asynchronous communication between kernel and user space. In case of
>>> DCC, the communication appears to be asynchronous, where in user asks
>>> the kernel to capture some info and kernel can indicate back to user
>>> when the info is captured. Also the entire mess surrounding echoing addr
>>> / value / offset repeatedly into a sysfs entry can be avoided using
>>> netlink interface.
>> Hello Thara,
>> Thanks for your review comments. Following are some points from my end
>> 1) Each linked list represent a particular block of memory in DCC_SRAM which
>> is preserved for that particular list. That is why offset calculation is
>> done on the driver based on the linked list chosen by the user.
>>     This choice needs to be made by the user since the number for the linked
>> list chosen is specific to the registers used to debug a particular
>> component.  Also we are giving the user flexibility to configure multiple
>>     linked lists at one go so that even if we don't have a separate folder
>> for it , the dumps are collected as a separate list of registers. Also there
>> are certain curr_list values which may be supported by the dcc
>>     hardware but may not be accessible to the user and so the choice cannot
>> be made arbitrarily from the driver.
> But in the end, as you write out the SRAM content, is there really any
> linked lists? Afaict it's just a sequence of operations/commands. The
> linked list part seems to be your data structure of choice to keep track
> of these operations in the driver before flushing them out.

That is correct, the linked list defined in the driver is for storing
the addresses sequentially in DCC_SRAM and is just an internal

data structure of the driver. However, there is also a "list" from DCC
hardware perspective. The following driver code shows how

a list is initiated with the beginning and end sram offset so that DCC
hardware can treat it as a separate list of addresses and dump

the values separately.

              /* 1. Take ownership of the list */
                dcc_writel(drvdata, BIT(0), DCC_LL_LOCK(list));

                /* 2. Program linked-list in the SRAM */
                ram_cfg_base = drvdata->ram_cfg;
                ret = __dcc_ll_cfg(drvdata, list);
                if (ret) {
                        dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_LOCK(list));
                        goto err;

                /* 3. program DCC_RAM_CFG reg */
                dcc_writel(drvdata, ram_cfg_base +
                        drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_LL_BASE(list));
                dcc_writel(drvdata, drvdata->ram_start +
                        drvdata->ram_offset/4, DCC_FD_BASE(list));
                dcc_writel(drvdata, 0xFFF, DCC_LL_TIMEOUT(list));

                /* 4. Clears interrupt status register */
                dcc_writel(drvdata, 0, DCC_LL_INT_ENABLE(list));
                dcc_writel(drvdata, (BIT(0) | BIT(1) | BIT(2)),

                drvdata->enable[list] = true;

So when user enters multiple lists, the DCC hardware will process it as
separate group of register values.

> Regards,
> Bjorn
>> 2) From opensource, I can see that Netlink has been used in most of the
>> cases where we need to notify stats to the user by taking the advantage of
>> asynchronous communication. In this case, that requirement is not
>>     there since it is mostly one way communication from user to kernel. Also
>> since this is used for debugging purposes perhaps sysfs adds more
>> reliability than Netlink. In case of Netlink we have the additional
>>      overhead of dealing with socket calls. Let me know otherwise.
>> Thanks,
>> Souradeep

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-07 16:45    [W:1.567 / U:1.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site