Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] mailbox: Add support for QTI CPUCP mailbox controller

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:58:53PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..059eb25f217c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-cpucp-mbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2024, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.

Nope.

> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/irq.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED		3
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF			0x4
> +
> +/* Tx Registers */
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_IDR			0
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_CMD(i)		(0x100 + ((i) * 8))
> +
> +/* Rx Registers */
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_IDR			0
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD(i)		(0x100 + ((i) * 8))
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP			0x4000
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_STAT			0x4400
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR		0x4800
> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN			0x4C00

Can we have lower case hex digits, plz?

> +#define APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD_MASK		0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
> +
> +/**
> + * struct qcom_cpucp_mbox - Holder for the mailbox driver
> + * @chans:			The mailbox channel
> + * @mbox:			The mailbox controller
> + * @tx_base:			Base address of the CPUCP tx registers
> + * @rx_base:			Base address of the CPUCP rx registers
> + * @dev:			Device associated with this instance
> + * @irq:			CPUCP to AP irq

@dev and @irq can be a local variables in qcom_cpucp_mbox_probe().

> + */
> +struct qcom_cpucp_mbox {
> +	struct mbox_chan chans[APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED];
> +	struct mbox_controller mbox;
> +	void __iomem *tx_base;
> +	void __iomem *rx_base;
> +	struct device *dev;
> +	int irq;
> +};
> +
> +static inline int channel_number(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	return chan - chan->mbox->chans;
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t qcom_cpucp_mbox_irq_fn(int irq, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = data;
> +	struct mbox_chan *chan;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	u64 status;
> +	u32 val;
> +	int i;
> +
> +	status = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_STAT);
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED; i++) {
> +		val = 0;

This value is immediately overwritten (or unused).

> +		if (status & BIT(i)) {

Can't you combine the for loop and this conditional into a
for_each_bit_set()?

> +			val = readl(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD(i) + APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF);
> +			chan = &cpucp->chans[i];
> +			spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);

Can you please add a comment here to document that the lock is taken
here to deal with races against client registration? (It wasn't obvious
to me...)

> +			if (chan->cl)
> +				mbox_chan_received_data(chan, &val);
> +			writeq(BIT(i), cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR);
> +			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> +	unsigned long chan_id = channel_number(chan);
> +	u64 val;
> +
> +	val = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +	val |= BIT(chan_id);
> +	writeq(val, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void qcom_cpucp_mbox_shutdown(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> +	unsigned long chan_id = channel_number(chan);
> +	u64 val;
> +
> +	val = readq(cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +	val &= ~BIT(chan_id);
> +	writeq(val, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp = container_of(chan->mbox, struct qcom_cpucp_mbox, mbox);
> +	unsigned long chan_id = channel_number(chan);
> +	u32 *val = data;
> +
> +	writel(*val, cpucp->tx_base + APSS_CPUCP_TX_MBOX_CMD(chan_id) + APSS_CPUCP_MBOX_CMD_OFF);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mbox_chan_ops qcom_cpucp_mbox_chan_ops = {
> +	.startup = qcom_cpucp_mbox_startup,
> +	.send_data = qcom_cpucp_mbox_send_data,
> +	.shutdown = qcom_cpucp_mbox_shutdown
> +};
> +
> +static int qcom_cpucp_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct qcom_cpucp_mbox *cpucp;
> +	struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	cpucp = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cpucp), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!cpucp)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	cpucp->dev = &pdev->dev;
> +
> +	cpucp->rx_base = devm_of_iomap(cpucp->dev, cpucp->dev->of_node, 0, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(cpucp->rx_base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(cpucp->rx_base);
> +
> +	cpucp->tx_base = devm_of_iomap(cpucp->dev, cpucp->dev->of_node, 1, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(cpucp->tx_base))
> +		return PTR_ERR(cpucp->tx_base);
> +
> +	writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_EN);
> +	writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CLEAR);
> +	writeq(0, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP);
> +
> +	cpucp->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +	if (cpucp->irq < 0)
> +		return cpucp->irq;
> +
> +	ret = devm_request_irq(cpucp->dev, cpucp->irq, qcom_cpucp_mbox_irq_fn,
> +			       IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH, "apss_cpucp_mbox", cpucp);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return dev_err_probe(cpucp->dev, ret, "Failed to register irq: %d\n", cpucp->irq);
> +
> +	writeq(APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_CMD_MASK, cpucp->rx_base + APSS_CPUCP_RX_MBOX_MAP);
> +
> +	mbox = &cpucp->mbox;
> +	mbox->dev = cpucp->dev;
> +	mbox->num_chans = APSS_CPUCP_IPC_CHAN_SUPPORTED;
> +	mbox->chans = cpucp->chans;
> +	mbox->ops = &qcom_cpucp_mbox_chan_ops;
> +	mbox->txdone_irq = false;
> +	mbox->txdone_poll = false;
> +
> +	ret = devm_mbox_controller_register(cpucp->dev, mbox);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return dev_err_probe(cpucp->dev, ret, "Failed to create mailbox\n");
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cpucp);

I don't see you using the drvdata anywhere, can we drop this?

> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-cpucp-mbox"},

A space after the final '"' would be good for aesthetics.

Regards,
Bjorn

> +	{}
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver qcom_cpucp_mbox_driver = {
> +	.probe = qcom_cpucp_mbox_probe,
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "qcom_cpucp_mbox",
> +		.of_match_table = qcom_cpucp_mbox_of_match,
> +	},
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(qcom_cpucp_mbox_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("QTI CPUCP MBOX Driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>