Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mediatek: Support MT8188 SCP core 1

From: Olivia Wen (温倩苓)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2024 - 07:27:12 EST

Next message: Uwe Kleine-König: "Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] pwm: meson: don't carry internal clock elements around"
Previous message: Conor Dooley: "Re: [PATCH 05/19] riscv: Fix extension subset checking"
In reply to: Olivia Wen (温倩苓): "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mediatek: Support MT8188 SCP core 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi AngeloGioacchino,

Thanks for the reviews.

On Thu, 2024-04-11 at 09:33 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 11/04/24 05:37, olivia.wen ha scritto:
> > To Support MT8188 SCP core 1 for ISP driver.
> > The SCP on different chips will require different code sizes
> > and IPI buffer sizes based on varying requirements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: olivia.wen <olivia.wen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 5 +--
> > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 62
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c | 9 ++++--
> > include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h | 1 +
> > 4 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > index 6d7736a..8f37f65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@
> > #define MT8195_L2TCM_OFFSET 0x850d0
> >
> > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32
> > -#define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288
> >
> > struct scp_run {
> > u32 signaled;
> > @@ -110,6 +109,8 @@ struct mtk_scp_of_data {
> > u32 host_to_scp_int_bit;
> >
> > size_t ipi_buf_offset;
> > + u32 ipi_buffer_size;
>
> this should be `ipi_share_buf_size`
>
> > + u32 max_code_size;
>
> max_code_size should probably be dram_code_size or max_dram_size or
> dram_size.
>
> Also, both should be size_t, not u32.

It will be fixed in the next version.

>
> > };
> >
> > struct mtk_scp_of_cluster {
> > @@ -162,7 +163,7 @@ struct mtk_scp {
> > struct mtk_share_obj {
> > u32 id;
> > u32 len;
> > - u8 share_buf[SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE];
> > + u8 *share_buf;
> > };
> >
> > void scp_memcpy_aligned(void __iomem *dst, const void *src,
> > unsigned int len);
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > index 6751829..270718d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@
> > #include "mtk_common.h"
> > #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> >
> > -#define MAX_CODE_SIZE 0x500000
> > #define SECTION_NAME_IPI_BUFFER ".ipi_buffer"
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -94,14 +93,14 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> > {
> > struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *rcv_obj = scp->recv_buf;
> > struct scp_ipi_desc *ipi_desc = scp->ipi_desc;
> > - u8 tmp_data[SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE];
> > + u8 *tmp_data;
> > scp_ipi_handler_t handler;
> > u32 id = readl(&rcv_obj->id);
> > u32 len = readl(&rcv_obj->len);
> >
> > - if (len > SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE) {
> > + if (len > scp->data->ipi_buffer_size) {
> > dev_err(scp->dev, "ipi message too long (len %d, max
> > %d)", len,
> > - SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE);
> > + scp->data->ipi_buffer_size);
> > return;
> > }
> > if (id >= SCP_IPI_MAX) {
> > @@ -109,6 +108,10 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > + tmp_data = kzalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> I think that this will be impacting on performance a bit, especially
> if
> the scp_ipi_handler gets called frequently (and also remember that
> this
> is in interrupt context).
>
> For best performance, you should allocate this at probe time (in
> struct mtk_scp
> or somewhere else), then:
>
> len = ipi message length
> memset zero the tmp_data from len to ipi_buffer_size
>
> memcpy_fromio(....) etc
>
> > + if (!tmp_data)
> > + return;
> > +
> > scp_ipi_lock(scp, id);
> > handler = ipi_desc[id].handler;
> > if (!handler) {
> > @@ -123,6 +126,7 @@ static void scp_ipi_handler(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> >
> > scp->ipi_id_ack[id] = true;
> > wake_up(&scp->ack_wq);
> > + kfree(tmp_data);
>
> There's a possible memory leak. You forgot to kfree in the NULL
> handler path.
>
> > }
> >

It seems more appropriate to allocate memory in the function
scp_rproc_init and free memory within the function scp_free.

And memset zero the tmp_data by ipi_share_buffer_size in function
scp_ipi_handler.

I will make changes like this.
If there are any other suggestions, plese provide them.
Thank you.

> > static int scp_elf_read_ipi_buf_addr(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > @@ -133,6 +137,7 @@ static int scp_ipi_init(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > const struct firmware *fw)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > size_t buf_sz, offset;
> > + size_t share_buf_offset;
> >
> > /* read the ipi buf addr from FW itself first */
> > ret = scp_elf_read_ipi_buf_addr(scp, fw, &offset);
> > @@ -154,10 +159,12 @@ static int scp_ipi_init(struct mtk_scp *scp,
> > const struct firmware *fw)
> >
> > scp->recv_buf = (struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *)
> > (scp->sram_base + offset);
> > + share_buf_offset = sizeof(scp->recv_buf->id)
> > + + sizeof(scp->recv_buf->len) + scp->data-
> > >ipi_buffer_size;
> > scp->send_buf = (struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *)
> > - (scp->sram_base + offset + sizeof(*scp-
> > >recv_buf));
> > - memset_io(scp->recv_buf, 0, sizeof(*scp->recv_buf));
> > - memset_io(scp->send_buf, 0, sizeof(*scp->send_buf));
> > + (scp->sram_base + offset + share_buf_offset);
> > + memset_io(scp->recv_buf, 0, share_buf_offset);
> > + memset_io(scp->send_buf, 0, share_buf_offset);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -891,7 +898,7 @@ static int scp_map_memory_region(struct mtk_scp
> > *scp)
> > }
> >
> > /* Reserved SCP code size */
> > - scp->dram_size = MAX_CODE_SIZE;
> > + scp->dram_size = scp->data->max_code_size;
>
> Remove the dram_size member from struct mtk_scp and use max_code_size
> directly.
>

It will be corrected in the next version.

> > scp->cpu_addr = dma_alloc_coherent(scp->dev, scp->dram_size,
> > &scp->dma_addr, GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!scp->cpu_addr)
> > @@ -1247,6 +1254,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8183_of_data = {
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8183_HOST_TO_SCP,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8183_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > .ipi_buf_offset = 0x7bdb0,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8186_of_data = {
> > @@ -1260,18 +1269,22 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8186_of_data = {
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8183_HOST_TO_SCP,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8183_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > .ipi_buf_offset = 0x3bdb0,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data = {
> > .scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get,
> > - .scp_before_load = mt8192_scp_before_load,
> > - .scp_irq_handler = mt8192_scp_irq_handler,
> > + .scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_before_load,
> > + .scp_irq_handler = mt8195_scp_irq_handler,
>
> You should mention the reason of this change in the commit
> description, or better,
> you should make a separate commit with a Fixes tag for this.
>

I will add the reason in the commit description in the next version.

> > .scp_reset_assert = mt8192_scp_reset_assert,
> > .scp_reset_deassert = mt8192_scp_reset_deassert,
> > - .scp_stop = mt8192_scp_stop,
> > + .scp_stop = mt8195_scp_stop,
> > .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 600,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8192_of_data = {
> > @@ -1284,6 +1297,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8192_of_data = {
> > .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data = {
> > @@ -1296,6 +1311,8 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8195_of_data = {
> > .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> > @@ -1308,6 +1325,22 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> > .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > + .max_code_size = 0x500000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 288,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data_c1 = {
> > + .scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get,
> > + .scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_c1_before_load,
> > + .scp_irq_handler = mt8195_scp_c1_irq_handler,
> > + .scp_reset_assert = mt8195_scp_c1_reset_assert,
> > + .scp_reset_deassert = mt8195_scp_c1_reset_deassert,
> > + .scp_stop = mt8195_scp_c1_stop,
> > + .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va,
> > + .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET,
> > + .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > + .max_code_size = 0xA00000,
> > + .ipi_buffer_size = 600,
>
> I wonder if it's more sensible to add a new struct instead,
> so that you can define
>
> static const struct mtk_scp_sizes_data mt8188_scp_sizes = {
> .max_code_size = 0xA00000,
> .ipi_buffer_size = 600
> };
>
> ...and then reuse like
>
> static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8188_of_data_c1 = {
> ..... stuff .....
> .scp_sizes = &mt8188_scp_sizes
> };
>
> ...that'd be more important for mt8192, 95 and the others as those
> params
> would be reused many, many times.
>

Thanks for this suggestion.
It will be modified in the next version.

> > };
> >
> > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> > @@ -1316,6 +1349,12 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data
> > *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> > NULL
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8188_of_data_cores[] = {
> > + &mt8188_of_data,
> > + &mt8188_of_data_c1,
> > + NULL
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct of_device_id mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-scp", .data = &mt8183_of_data
> > },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-scp", .data = &mt8186_of_data
> > },
> > @@ -1323,6 +1362,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-scp", .data = &mt8192_of_data
> > },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp", .data = &mt8195_of_data
> > },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp-dual", .data =
> > &mt8195_of_data_cores },
> > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-scp-dual", .data =
> > &mt8188_of_data_cores },
> > {},
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mtk_scp_of_match);
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > index cd0b601..4ef5491 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp_ipi.c
> > @@ -162,10 +162,12 @@ int scp_ipi_send(struct mtk_scp *scp, u32 id,
> > void *buf, unsigned int len,
> > struct mtk_share_obj __iomem *send_obj = scp->send_buf;
> > u32 val;
> > int ret;
> > + size_t share_buf_offset;
> > + void __iomem *share_buf_io_address;
> >
> > if (WARN_ON(id <= SCP_IPI_INIT) || WARN_ON(id >= SCP_IPI_MAX)
> > ||
> > WARN_ON(id == SCP_IPI_NS_SERVICE) ||
> > - WARN_ON(len > sizeof(send_obj->share_buf)) ||
> > WARN_ON(!buf))
> > + WARN_ON(len > scp->data->ipi_buffer_size) || WARN_ON(!buf))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > ret = clk_prepare_enable(scp->clk);
> > @@ -184,7 +186,10 @@ int scp_ipi_send(struct mtk_scp *scp, u32 id,
> > void *buf, unsigned int len,
> > goto unlock_mutex;
> > }
> >
> > - scp_memcpy_aligned(send_obj->share_buf, buf, len);
> > + share_buf_offset = offsetof(struct mtk_share_obj, share_buf);
> > + share_buf_io_address = (void __iomem *)((uintptr_t)scp-
> > >send_buf + share_buf_offset);
> > +
> > + scp_memcpy_aligned(share_buf_io_address, buf, len);
> >
> > writel(len, &send_obj->len);
> > writel(id, &send_obj->id);
> > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > b/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > index 7c2b7cc9..344ff41 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc/mtk_scp.h
> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ enum scp_ipi_id {
> > SCP_IPI_CROS_HOST_CMD,
> > SCP_IPI_VDEC_LAT,
> > SCP_IPI_VDEC_CORE,
> > + SCP_IPI_IMGSYS_CMD,
>
> There's no mention of the addition of this new IPI ID in the commit
> description.
> Please write something about it.
>

It will be added in the next version.

> Cheers,
> Angelo
>
> > SCP_IPI_NS_SERVICE = 0xFF,
> > SCP_IPI_MAX = 0x100,
> > };
>
>

Best regards,
Olivia

Next message: Uwe Kleine-König: "Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] pwm: meson: don't carry internal clock elements around"
Previous message: Conor Dooley: "Re: [PATCH 05/19] riscv: Fix extension subset checking"
In reply to: Olivia Wen (温倩苓): "Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: mediatek: Support MT8188 SCP core 1"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]