Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support

From: Nicolas Boichat
Date: Fri Dec 21 2018 - 19:31:48 EST

Next message: Randy Dunlap: "Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: fix unmet dependencies in Kconfig"
Previous message: Matthias Kaehlcke: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Deassert RTS while baudrate change command"
In reply to: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Next in thread: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yong Wu <yong.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2018-12-21 at 12:43 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:42 PM Yong Wu <yong.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The M4U IP blocks in mt8183 is MediaTek's generation2 M4U which use
> > > the ARM Short-descriptor like mt8173, and most of the HW registers
> > > are the same.
> > >
> > > Here list main differences between mt8183 and mt8173/mt2712:
> > > 1) mt8183 has only one M4U HW like mt8173 while mt2712 has two.
> > > 2) mt8183 don't have the "bclk" clock, it use the EMI clock instead.
> > > 3) mt8183 can support the dram over 4GB, but it doesn't call this "4GB
> > > mode".
> > > 4) mt8183 pgtable base register(0x0) extend bit[1:0] which represent
> > > the bit[33:32] in the physical address of the pgtable base, But the
> > > standard ttbr0[1] means the S bit which is enabled defaultly, Hence,
> > > we add a mask.
> > > 5) mt8183 HW has a GALS modules, SMI should enable "has_gals" support.
> > > 6) the larb-id in smi-common is remapped. M4U should enable
> > > larbid_remapped support.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yong Wu <yong.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > index 8ab3b69..d91a554 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> > > #include "mtk_iommu.h"
> > >
> > > #define REG_MMU_PT_BASE_ADDR 0x000
> > > +#define MMU_PT_ADDR_MASK GENMASK(31, 7)
> > >
> > > #define REG_MMU_INVALIDATE 0x020
> > > #define F_ALL_INVLD 0x2
> > > @@ -54,7 +55,7 @@
> > > #define REG_MMU_CTRL_REG 0x110
> > > #define F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD BIT(4)
> > > #define F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT(data) \
> > > - ((data)->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT2712 ? 4 : 5)
> > > + ((data)->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173 ? 5 : 4)
> >
> > Should the shift value be a member of plat_data instead?
>
> It's also ok.
> This TF_PROTECT_SEL MACRO looks a bit complex. I can use a new patch to
> refactor it.

SGTM.

> >
> > > /* It's named by F_MMU_TF_PROT_SEL in mt2712. */
> > > #define F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL(prot, data) \
> > > (((prot) & 0x3) << F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT(data))
> > > @@ -347,7 +348,7 @@ static int mtk_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> > > /* Update the pgtable base address register of the M4U HW */
> > > if (!data->m4u_dom) {
> > > data->m4u_dom = dom;
> > > - writel(dom->cfg.arm_v7s_cfg.ttbr[0],
> > > + writel(dom->cfg.arm_v7s_cfg.ttbr[0] & MMU_PT_ADDR_MASK,
> > > data->base + REG_MMU_PT_BASE_ADDR);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -510,6 +511,7 @@ static int mtk_iommu_of_xlate(struct device *dev, struct of_phandle_args *args)
> > >
> > > static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data)
> > > {
> > > + enum mtk_iommu_plat m4u_plat = data->plat_data->m4u_plat;
> > > u32 regval;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > @@ -520,7 +522,7 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data)
> > > }
> > >
> > > regval = F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL(2, data);
> > > - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
> > > + if (m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
> > > regval |= F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD;
> > > writel_relaxed(regval, data->base + REG_MMU_CTRL_REG);
> > >
> > > @@ -541,14 +543,14 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data)
> > > F_INT_PRETETCH_TRANSATION_FIFO_FAULT;
> > > writel_relaxed(regval, data->base + REG_MMU_INT_MAIN_CONTROL);
> > >
> > > - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
> > > + if (m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
> > > regval = (data->protect_base >> 1) | (data->enable_4GB << 31);
> > > else
> > > regval = lower_32_bits(data->protect_base) |
> > > upper_32_bits(data->protect_base);
> > > writel_relaxed(regval, data->base + REG_MMU_IVRP_PADDR);
> > >
> > > - if (data->enable_4GB && data->plat_data->m4u_plat != M4U_MT8173) {
> > > + if (data->enable_4GB && m4u_plat == M4U_MT2712) {
> > > /*
> > > * If 4GB mode is enabled, the validate PA range is from
> > > * 0x1_0000_0000 to 0x1_ffff_ffff. here record bit[32:30].
> > > @@ -558,8 +560,11 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data)
> > > }
> > > writel_relaxed(0, data->base + REG_MMU_DCM_DIS);
> > >
> > > - /* It's MISC control register whose default value is ok except mt8173.*/
> > > - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
> > > + /*
> > > + * It's MISC control register whose default value is ok
> > > + * except mt8173 and mt8183.
> > > + */
> > > + if (m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173 || m4u_plat == M4U_MT8183)
> >
> > Again, should this be a field in plat_data?
>
> In mt8173 and mt8183, 0x48 is REG_MMU_STANDARD_AXI_MODE while it's
> MMU_MISC_CTRL which contain this STANDARD_AXI_MODE bit and some other
> bits in the other SoCs.
>
> The register name and meaning are not the same. I guess I can not use a
> value like reg_0x48 in plat_data. I'd like to keep the current way. is
> it ok?

What I mean is to add a "reset_axi" (or something) field in plat_data, and do:
if (plat_data->reset_axi)
instead of
if (m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173 || m4u_plat == M4U_MT8183)

My main concern is that the test will grow bigger and bigger as we add
support for more SoCs (similarly to your F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT
test above, where you are lucky because only one of the SoC requires a
shift of 5 bits, and the 2 others require 4).

Thanks,

> >
> > > writel_relaxed(0, data->base + REG_MMU_STANDARD_AXI_MODE);
> > >
> > > if (devm_request_irq(data->dev, data->irq, mtk_iommu_isr, 0,
> > > @@ -713,6 +718,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_iommu_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct mtk_iommu_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > struct mtk_iommu_suspend_reg *reg = &data->reg;
> > > + struct mtk_iommu_domain *m4u_dom = data->m4u_dom;
> > > void __iomem *base = data->base;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > @@ -728,8 +734,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_iommu_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > writel_relaxed(reg->int_control0, base + REG_MMU_INT_CONTROL0);
> > > writel_relaxed(reg->int_main_control, base + REG_MMU_INT_MAIN_CONTROL);
> > > writel_relaxed(reg->ivrp_paddr, base + REG_MMU_IVRP_PADDR);
> > > - if (data->m4u_dom)
> > > - writel(data->m4u_dom->cfg.arm_v7s_cfg.ttbr[0],
> > > + if (m4u_dom)
> > > + writel(m4u_dom->cfg.arm_v7s_cfg.ttbr[0] & MMU_PT_ADDR_MASK,
> > > base + REG_MMU_PT_BASE_ADDR);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > @@ -750,9 +756,16 @@ static int __maybe_unused mtk_iommu_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > .has_bclk = true,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt8183_data = {
> > > + .m4u_plat = M4U_MT8183,
> > > + .larbid_remap_enable = true,
> > > + .larbid_remapped = {0, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 3, 1},
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static const struct of_device_id mtk_iommu_of_ids[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-m4u", .data = &mt2712_data},
> > > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-m4u", .data = &mt8173_data},
> > > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-m4u", .data = &mt8183_data},
> > > {}
> > > };
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.h b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.h
> > > index 3877050..6385dec 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.h
> > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ enum mtk_iommu_plat {
> > > M4U_MT2701,
> > > M4U_MT2712,
> > > M4U_MT8173,
> > > + M4U_MT8183,
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct mtk_iommu_plat_data {
> > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> > > index 3720c77..bced778 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/memory/mtk-smi.c
> > > @@ -285,6 +285,12 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen1(struct device *dev)
> > > .larb_special_mask = BIT(8) | BIT(9), /* bdpsys */
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static const struct mtk_smi_larb_gen mtk_smi_larb_mt8183 = {
> > > + .has_gals = true,
> > > + .config_port = mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen2_general,
> > > + .larb_special_mask = BIT(2) | BIT(3) | BIT(7), /* IPU0 | IPU1 | CCU */
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static const struct of_device_id mtk_smi_larb_of_ids[] = {
> > > {
> > > .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smi-larb",
> > > @@ -298,6 +304,10 @@ static void mtk_smi_larb_config_port_gen1(struct device *dev)
> > > .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-smi-larb",
> > > .data = &mtk_smi_larb_mt2712
> > > },
> > > + {
> > > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-smi-larb",
> > > + .data = &mtk_smi_larb_mt8183
> > > + },
> > > {}
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -391,6 +401,11 @@ static int mtk_smi_larb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > .gen = MTK_SMI_GEN2,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +static const struct mtk_smi_common_plat mtk_smi_common_mt8183 = {
> > > + .gen = MTK_SMI_GEN2,
> > > + .has_gals = true,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > static const struct of_device_id mtk_smi_common_of_ids[] = {
> > > {
> > > .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smi-common",
> > > @@ -404,6 +419,10 @@ static int mtk_smi_larb_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-smi-common",
> > > .data = &mtk_smi_common_gen2,
> > > },
> > > + {
> > > + .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-smi-common",
> > > + .data = &mtk_smi_common_mt8183,
> > > + },
> > > {}
> > > };
> > >
> > > --
> > > 1.9.1
> > >
>
>

Next message: Randy Dunlap: "Re: [PATCH] ASoC: Intel: fix unmet dependencies in Kconfig"
Previous message: Matthias Kaehlcke: "Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] Bluetooth: hci_qca: Deassert RTS while baudrate change command"
In reply to: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Next in thread: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]