Re: [PATCH v5 07/11] hw/char: Initial commit of Ibex UART

[Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 10:06 PM LIU Zhiwei <liuzwnan@163.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/6/4 12:35, Alistair Francis wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:59 PM LIU Zhiwei <zhiwei_liu@c-sky.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2020/6/3 23:56, Alistair Francis wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:33 AM LIU Zhiwei <zhiwei_liu@c-sky.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/6/3 1:54, Alistair Francis wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 5:28 AM LIU Zhiwei<zhiwei_liu@c-sky.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Alistair,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are still some questions I don't understand.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1. Is the baud rate  or fifo a necessary feature to simulate?
> >>>>>> As you can see, qemu_chr_fe_write will send the byte as soon as possible.
> >>>>>> When you want to transmit a byte through WDATA,  you can call
> >>>>>> qemu_chr_fe_write directly.
> >>>>> So qemu_chr_fe_write() will send the data straight away. This doesn't
> >>>>> match what teh hardware does though. So by modelling a FIFO and a
> >>>>> delay in sending we can better match the hardware.
> >>>> I see many UARTs have similar features. Does the software really care about
> >>>> these features? Usually I just want to print something to the terminal
> >>>> through UART.
> >>> In this case Tock (which is the OS used for OpenTitan) does car about
> >>> these features as it relies on interrupts generated by the HW to
> >>> complete the serial send task. It also just makes the QEMU model more
> >>> accurate.
> >> Fair enough. I see the "tx_watermark" interrupt, which needs the FIFO.
> >> At least,
> >> it can verify the ISP.
> > Exactly :)
> >
> >>>> Most simulation in QEMU is for running software, not exactly the details
> >>>> of hardware.
> >>>> For example, we will not simulate the 16x oversamples in this UART.
> >>> Agreed. Lots of UARTs don't bother modelling the delay from the
> >>> hardware as generally it doesn't matter. In this case it does make a
> >>> difference for the software and it makes the QEMU model more accurate,
> >>> which is always a good thing.
> >>>
> >>>> There is no error here. Personally I  think it is necessary to simulate
> >>>> the FIFO and baud rate,
> >>>> maybe for supporting some backends.
> >>> So baud rate doesn't need to be modelled as we aren't actually sending
> >>> UART data, just pretending and then printing it.
> >>>
> >>>> Can someone give a reasonable answer for this question?
> >>> Which question?
> >> I see  the UART can work with many  different backends,  such as pty ,
> >> file, socket and so on.
> >> I wonder if this a backend, which has some requirements on the baud
> > The backend should be independent so it doesn't matter what baud rate
> > we choose here.
> >
> >> rate.  You can ignore it,
> >> as it doesn't matter.
> >>>>>> 2.  The baud rate calculation method is not strictly right.
> >>>>>> I think when a byte write to FIFO,  char_tx_time * 8 is the correct time
> >>>>>> to send the byte instead of
> >>>>>> char_tx_time * 4.
> >>>>> Do you mind explaining why 8 is correct instead of 4?
> >>>> Usually write a byte to WDATA will trigger a uart_write_tx_fifo.
> >>>> Translate a bit will take
> >>>> char_tx_time. So it will take char_tx_time * 8 to transmit a byte.
> >>> I see your point. I just used the 4 as that is what the Cadence one
> >>> does. I don't think it matters too much as it's just the delay for a
> >>> timer (that isn't used as an accurate timer).
> >> Got it. Just a way to send the bytes at sometime later.
> >>>>>> 3.  Why add a watch here?
> >>>>> This is based on the Cadence UART implementation in QEMU (which does
> >>>>> the same thing). This will trigger a callback when we can write more
> >>>>> data or when the backend has hung up.
> >>>> Many other serials do the same thing, like virtio-console and serial. So
> >>>> it may be a common
> >>>> interface here. I will try to understand it(Not yet).
> >>> Yep, it's just a more complete model of that the HW does.
> >> I try to boot a RISC-V Linux, and set a breakpoint  to a watch callback
> >> function.
> >> The breakpoint did't match.
> >>
> >> I just wonder if there is a case really need the callback function.
> > AFAIK Linux doesn't support the Ibex UART (or Ibex at all) so it
> > shouldn't be triggered.
> I tried with the UART in the virt board.  It also registers the watch
> callback on
> G_IO_HUP and G_IO_OUT.
>
> However I will through the question alone in another mail.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood what you meant.

I haven't looked at it, it's possible it's not enabled by Linux.

>
> After the two points addressed,
>
> Reviewed-by: LIU Zhiwei<zhiwei_liu@c-sky.com>

Thanks!

Alistair

>
> Zhiwei
> >
> > Alistair
> >
> >> Zhiwei
> >>> Alistair
>
>
>