Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: add pm domains support

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Tue Nov 21 2023 - 17:59:36 EST

Next message: Eric Biggers: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] dm verity: don't verity if readahead failed"
Previous message: Namhyung Kim: "[PATCH 04/14] tools headers UAPI: Update tools's copy of mount.h header"
In reply to: Tanmay Shah: "[PATCH v7 3/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: add pm domains support"
Next in thread: Tanmay Shah: "Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: add pm domains support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 09:42:37AM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> Use TCM pm domains extracted from device-tree
> to power on/off TCM using general pm domain framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes in v7:
> - %s/pm_dev1/pm_dev_core0/r
> - %s/pm_dev_link1/pm_dev_core0_link/r
> - %s/pm_dev2/pm_dev_core1/r
> - %s/pm_dev_link2/pm_dev_core1_link/r
> - remove pm_domain_id check to move next patch
> - add comment about how 1st entry in pm domain list is used
> - fix loop when jump to fail_add_pm_domains loop
>
> drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c | 215 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 212 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 4395edea9a64..22bccc5075a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/xlnx_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>
> #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>
> @@ -102,6 +103,12 @@ static const struct mem_bank_data zynqmp_tcm_banks_lockstep[] = {
> * @rproc: rproc handle
> * @pm_domain_id: RPU CPU power domain id
> * @ipi: pointer to mailbox information
> + * @num_pm_dev: number of tcm pm domain devices for this core
> + * @pm_dev_core0: pm domain virtual devices for power domain framework
> + * @pm_dev_core0_link: pm domain device links after registration
> + * @pm_dev_core1: used only in lockstep mode. second core's pm domain virtual devices
> + * @pm_dev_core1_link: used only in lockstep mode. second core's pm device links after
> + * registration
> */
> struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> struct device *dev;
> @@ -111,6 +118,11 @@ struct zynqmp_r5_core {
> struct rproc *rproc;
> u32 pm_domain_id;
> struct mbox_info *ipi;
> + int num_pm_dev;
> + struct device **pm_dev_core0;
> + struct device_link **pm_dev_core0_link;
> + struct device **pm_dev_core1;
> + struct device_link **pm_dev_core1_link;
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -651,7 +663,8 @@ static int add_tcm_carveout_lockstep_mode(struct rproc *rproc)
> ZYNQMP_PM_CAPABILITY_ACCESS, 0,
> ZYNQMP_PM_REQUEST_ACK_BLOCKING);
> if (ret < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x", pm_domain_id);
> + dev_err(dev, "failed to turn on TCM 0x%x",
> + pm_domain_id);

Spurious change, you should have caught that.

> goto release_tcm_lockstep;
> }
>
> @@ -758,6 +771,189 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void zynqmp_r5_remove_pm_domains(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
> + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + int i;
> +
> + cluster = platform_get_drvdata(to_platform_device(dev->parent));
> +
> + for (i = 1; i < r5_core->num_pm_dev; i++) {
> + device_link_del(r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link[i]);
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i], false);
> + }
> +
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core0);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0 = NULL;
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link = NULL;
> +
> + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE) {
> + r5_core->num_pm_dev = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 1; i < r5_core->num_pm_dev; i++) {
> + device_link_del(r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link[i]);
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core1[i], false);
> + }
> +
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1 = NULL;
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link = NULL;
> + r5_core->num_pm_dev = 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int zynqmp_r5_add_pm_domains(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> + struct zynqmp_r5_core *r5_core = rproc->priv;
> + struct device *dev = r5_core->dev, *dev2;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct device_node *np;
> + int i, j, num_pm_dev, ret;
> +
> + cluster = dev_get_drvdata(dev->parent);
> +
> + /* get number of power-domains */
> + num_pm_dev = of_count_phandle_with_args(r5_core->np, "power-domains",
> + "#power-domain-cells");
> +
> + if (num_pm_dev <= 0)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0 = kcalloc(num_pm_dev,
> + sizeof(struct device *),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core0)
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> +
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link = kcalloc(num_pm_dev,
> + sizeof(struct device_link *),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link) {
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core0);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0 = NULL;
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + r5_core->num_pm_dev = num_pm_dev;
> +
> + /*
> + * start from 2nd entry in power-domains property list as
> + * for zynqmp we only add TCM power domains and not core's power domain.
> + * 1st entry is used to configure r5 operation mode.

You are still not saying _where_ ->pm_dev_core0[0] gets added.

> + */
> + for (i = 1; i < r5_core->num_pm_dev; i++) {
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i] = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(dev, i);
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i])) {

Here IS_ERR_OR_NULL() is used while two if conditions for NULL and an error
code are used in the loop for the lockstep mode. Please pick one heuristic and
stick with it. I have no preference on which one.

> + dev_dbg(dev, "failed to attach pm domain %d, ret=%ld\n", i,
> + PTR_ERR(r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i]));
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains;
> + }
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link[i] = device_link_add(dev,
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i],
> + DL_FLAG_STATELESS |
> + DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE |
> + DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link[i]) {
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i], true);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i] = NULL;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (cluster->mode == SPLIT_MODE)
> + return 0;
> +
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1 = kcalloc(num_pm_dev,
> + sizeof(struct device *),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core1) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains;
> + }
> +
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link = kcalloc(num_pm_dev,
> + sizeof(struct device_link *),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link) {
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1 = NULL;
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains;
> + }
> +
> + /* get second core's device to detach its power-domains */
> + np = of_get_next_child(cluster->dev->of_node, of_node_get(dev->of_node));
> +
> + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> + if (!pdev) {
> + dev_err(cluster->dev, "core1 platform device not available\n");
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1);
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1 = NULL;
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link = NULL;
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains;
> + }
> +
> + dev2 = &pdev->dev;
> +
> + /* for zynqmp we only add TCM power domains and not core's power domain */
> + for (j = 1; j < r5_core->num_pm_dev; j++) {
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j] = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(dev2, j);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j]) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "can't attach to pm domain %d\n", j);
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains_lockstep;
> + } else if (IS_ERR(r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j])) {
> + dev_dbg(dev, "can't attach to pm domain %d\n", j);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j]);
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains_lockstep;
> + }
> +
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link[j] = device_link_add(dev,
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j],
> + DL_FLAG_STATELESS |
> + DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE |
> + DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME);
> + if (!r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link[j]) {
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j], true);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j] = NULL;
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto fail_add_pm_domains_lockstep;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +fail_add_pm_domains_lockstep:
> + while (--j >= 0) {
> + device_link_del(r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link[j]);
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core1[j], true);
> + }
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1 = NULL;
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core1_link = NULL;
> +
> +fail_add_pm_domains:
> + while (--i >= 0) {
> + device_link_del(r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link[i]);
> + dev_pm_domain_detach(r5_core->pm_dev_core0[i], true);
> + }
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core0);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0 = NULL;
> + kfree(r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link);
> + r5_core->pm_dev_core0_link = NULL;
> +

The error path is much cleaner and readable now.

I will continue tomorrow.

Mathieu

> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare()
> * adds carveouts for TCM bank and reserved memory regions
> @@ -770,19 +966,30 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + ret = zynqmp_r5_add_pm_domains(rproc);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to add pm domains\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> ret = add_tcm_banks(rproc);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get TCM banks, err %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> + goto fail_prepare;
> }
>
> ret = add_mem_regions_carveout(rproc);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(&rproc->dev, "failed to get reserve mem regions %d\n", ret);
> - return ret;
> + goto fail_prepare;
> }
>
> return 0;
> +
> +fail_prepare:
> + zynqmp_r5_remove_pm_domains(rproc);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -801,6 +1008,8 @@ static int zynqmp_r5_rproc_unprepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>
> r5_core = rproc->priv;
>
> + zynqmp_r5_remove_pm_domains(rproc);
> +
> for (i = 0; i < r5_core->tcm_bank_count; i++) {
> pm_domain_id = r5_core->tcm_banks[i]->pm_domain_id;
> if (zynqmp_pm_release_node(pm_domain_id))
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Next message: Eric Biggers: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] dm verity: don't verity if readahead failed"
Previous message: Namhyung Kim: "[PATCH 04/14] tools headers UAPI: Update tools's copy of mount.h header"
In reply to: Tanmay Shah: "[PATCH v7 3/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: add pm domains support"
Next in thread: Tanmay Shah: "Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] remoteproc: zynqmp: add pm domains support"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]