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

From: Yong Wu
Date: Fri Dec 21 2018 - 22:58:03 EST

Next message: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Previous message: yangerkun: "[PATCH] debugfs: remove no need inc_nlink"
In reply to: Nicolas Boichat: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Next in thread: Matthias Brugger: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, 2018-12-22 at 08:31 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> 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)

I really misunderstood this, Thanks the supplementary comment.
It looks I have to add a new minor patch again...

>
> 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).

About the F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL_SHIFT, Yes. Only mt8173 shift 5 bits
since its bit4 is F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD. the others shift 4
bits. I guess I could refine it like this:

/* ----Use this instead of the hard code : 2 --- */
#define F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR 2

if (plat_data->has_prefetch_replace_mod)
regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD | (F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR
<< 5)
else
regval = F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR << 4;

instead of
regval = F_MMU_TF_PROTECT_SEL(2, data);
if (m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173)
regval |= F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD;
>
> 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: Yong Wu: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Previous message: yangerkun: "[PATCH] debugfs: remove no need inc_nlink"
In reply to: Nicolas Boichat: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Next in thread: Matthias Brugger: "Re: [PATCH v4 10/18] iommu/mediatek: Add mt8183 IOMMU support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]