Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-binding: remoteproc: venus rproc dt binding document

From: Stanimir Varbanov
Date: Mon Aug 29 2016 - 07:48:51 EST


On 08/27/2016 01:23 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 25 Aug 04:10 PDT 2016, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> On 08/25/2016 03:05 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Wed 24 Aug 08:36 PDT 2016, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>> On 08/23/2016 08:32 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:53:19PM +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
>>>>>> Add devicetree binding document for Venus remote processor.
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,venus.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,venus.txt
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,venus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,venus.txt
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 000000000000..06a2db60fa38
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/remoteproc/qcom,venus.txt
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>>> +Qualcomm Venus Peripheral Image Loader
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +This document defines the binding for a component that loads and boots firmware
>>>>>> +on the Qualcomm Venus remote processor core.
>>>>> This does not make sense to me. Venus is the video encoder/decoder h/w,
>>>>> right? Why is the firmware loader separate from the codec block? Why
>>>>> rproc is used? Are there multiple clients? Naming it rproc_venus implies
>>>>> there aren't. And why does the firmware loading need 8MB of memory at a
>>>>> fixed address?
>>>> The firmware for Venus case is 5MB. And here is 8MB because of
>>>> dma_alloc_from_coherent size restriction.
>>> Then you should specify it 5MB large and we'll have to deal with this
>>> implementation issue in the code. I've created a JIRA ticket for
>>> the dma_alloc_from_coherent() behavior.
>> Infact it should be 5MB + ~100KB for iommu page table.
> Trying to wrap my head around how the iommu part works here. The
> downstream code seems to indicate that this is a "generic" secure iommu
> interface - used by venus, camera and kgsl; likely for dealing with DRM
> protected buffers.

The secure iommu interface is for content protected buffers. But these
secure iommu contexts aren't used by msm DRM nor Venus in mainline. In
Venus case I use non-secure iommu context for data buffers.

> As such the iommu tables are not part of the venus rproc; I believe they
> should either be tied into the msm-iommu driver or perhaps exposed as
> its own iommu(?).

The page tables are in msm-iommu driver.

> But I presume from your inclusion that you've concluded that the venus
> firmware we have refuses to execute without these tables at least
> initialized, is this correct?

Yes, the SMC call for PAS memory-setup will fail if this page table is
not initialized.

>>>> The address is not really fixed, cause the firmware could support
>>>> relocation. In this example I just picked up the next free memory region
>>>> in memory-reserved from msm8916.dtsi.
>>> In 8974 we do have a physical region where it's expected to be loaded.
>>> So in line with upcoming remoteproc work we should support referencing a
>>> reserved-memory node with either reg or size.
>>> In the case of spotting a "reg" we're currently better off using
>>> ioremap. We're looking at getting the remoteproc core to deal with this
>>> mess.
>> You mean that remoteproc core will parse memory-region property?
> It has to, because it's a quite common scenario for remoteproc drivers
> to either get its backing memory from a static region or be restricted
> to part of system ram - properties that reserved-memory and
> memory-region captures already.

OK, I have no issues with that. My concern is the manual parsing of
'memory-region' and 'reg' properties in remoteproc core.

So that idea is to have generic binding for rproc, that would be good.

>>> So, on 8916 I think you should use the form:
>>> venus_mem: venus {
>>> size = <0x500000>;
>>> };
>> Don't forget that the physical address where the firmware is stored has
>> some range, the scm call will fail if it is out of the expected range,
>> probably because of some security reasons. So maybe alloc-ranges should
>> be specified here.
> Thanks for highlighting this.
>>> And I don't think you should use the shared-dma-pool compatible, because
>>> this is not a region for multiple devices to allocate dma memory out of.
>> Then I cannot reuse reserved-mem infrastructure.
> You're right. If I understand the code correctly we need to use the
> compatible shared-dma-pool and mark it either "no-map" or "reusable", to
> be able to use dma_alloc_coherent().


> But I presume we have the implementation issue of dma_alloc_coherent()
> failing in either case with the 5MB size. I think we need to look into

I'd be good to include Marek Szyprowski? At least he will know what
design restrictions there are.

> that - and have created a JIRA ticket for it.
> Regards,
> Bjorn