[Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Damien Hedde]

Hi,

I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
(add power gating and clock support).
Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.

# CONTEXT

We want to model the clock distribution between devices in qemu
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg00310.html).
To this end, we need to make some changes in the reset procedure because
the current one does not allow to propagate things (like clocks or IOs)
between devices.

In the other hand, we also want to add power gating support. For that we
need state support in devices. This is related to reset because powering
down then up a device is like a reset.

# CURRENT STATE
First here is a current state of reset usage:

* Buses and Devices have a single reset method taking no parameter
  (apart from bus/device object)
* `qdev_reset_all`/`qbus_reset_all` functions call these reset methods
  for a bus/dev subtree
    + theses functions are used in ~20 places (mostly pci and scsi)
* `device_reset` function only do a device local reset (does not walk
  the bus subtree)
    + device_reset is used in ~10 places
* qemu_register_reset is used to register the:
    + `qbus_reset_all` of top-level/orphan buses (2 places)
    + ~100 of other reset functions (a lot of cpu related reset)
* qemu_devices_reset reset everythings that has been registered with
  qemu_register_reset
* Machines may define a reset method that overrides qemu_devices_reset
  global function (few machines do that)

# PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.

Having an interface simplify things since there is several reset entry
points (at least Buses and Devices).
Device and Bus objects will implement this interface.

The ResetDomain will hold several Resetable objects and implement the
interface too. The ResetDomain is needed to have at least a global/main
ResetDomain to place buses and devices to replace the current
qemu_register_reset system which only allow to register a function.

I also propose to handle the warm/cold reset distinction. This point is
explained below.

# RESETABLE INTERFACE

This Resetable interface describes the methods corresponding to a multi-
phase reset system. This is based on Peter's proposal (see
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg03302.html).

Here's the phases (I've tried to find adequate names):

INIT PHASE: (Peter's phase 1)
    Reset the object internal state, put a resetting flag and do the
    same for the reset subtree. No side effect on other devices to
    guarantee that, in a reset domain, everything get initialized first.
    This corresponds mostly to what is currently done in the device/bus
    reset method.

HOLD PHASE: (This phase was not in Peter's proposal)
    This phase allows to control a reset with a IO. When a IO control
    reset procedure based on the IO level (not edge), we may need to
    assert the reset, wait some time, and finally de-assert the reset.
    The consequence is that such a device can stay in a "resetting
    state" and may need to show this state to other devices through
    its outputs. For example, a clock controller will typically shutdown
    its clocks when it is in resetting state.

RELEASE PHASE: (Peter's phase 2, modified)
    This phase sets outputs to state after reset. For a clock controller
    it starts the clocks. It also clears the "resetting" flag (this is
    where is differs from Peter's phase 2). A device should not react to
    inputs until this flag has been cleared. During this phase, outputs
    are propagated in the reset domain (and outside the reset domain).

POST PHASE: (Peter's phase 3)
    This phase is kind of post-reset phase to do things that need the
    guarantee to be after the propagation of outputs inside the reset
    domain.

The interface contains a method per phase:
 void (*reset_init)(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
 void (*reset_hold)(Resetable *rst);
 void (*reset_release)(Resetable *rst);
 void (*reset_post)(Resetable *rst);

# WARM/COLD RESET

Warm/Cold reset differences may exists in devices. We want a cold reset
to handle power gating. (IMO powering off a device is identical to
putting it in a cold reset state).

To handle the difference between warm and cold reset, I propose to have
a parameter to the init phase of Resetable interface.
Other phases do not need the parameter since init phase should
put warm/cold difference in the device state.

# How to do a reset on a Resetable object

There is 3 entry points. The first one is when we do a reset event. I
call it `void resetable_trigger_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold)`. This
the one used for example at machine startup to initialize everything.
this should do the init, release and postphases in a row. I don't think
hold phase must be done here since release will do the opposite just after.

The 2 other entry points are dedicated to io control.
void resetable_assert_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
void resetable_deassert_reset(Resetable *rst);
assert will do init and hold phases while deassert will release and post
phase.

Obviously to correctly support this assert/de-assert a device must have
special support in order to handle migration in "resetting" state. There
is no migration problem while we only use trigger because there is no
point during the reset were migration could occur.

# DeviceClass impact

4 new methods are added in Device:
+ 3 corresponding to the hold/release/post phases.
+ 1 to handle the cold reset init phase.

The existing `reset` method is now the warm reset init phase. To handle
the cold reset, a new `cold_reset` is added. The default behavior of
this method is to call `reset` so that without any specific support cold
and warm reset are the same.

Instead of adding a cold reset method, we could add a parameter to the
current reset. But there is a lot of places that would need some changes
and I am really not sure we can do it automatically.

# BusClass impact

I don't think we need to add any new method to the bus. Since a bus has
no gpio, there is no propagation so phase hold/release/term are probably
meaningless here. Maybe a cold reset method is useful here ?

# Impact on existing code

There is not much impact. Basically the global qemu_reset should be
changed to handle Resetable objects with a global ResetDomain. Also the
2 occurrences of qemu_register_reset(qbus_reset_all, ...) must be
replaced to add the buses in the global ResetDomain.

qdev/qbus_reset_all/device_reset behavior will be changed to trigger
phase reset (instead of doing one dev/bus walk, there will be a walk per
reset phase). We can add the cold/warm parameter (and modify the places
were the functions are called) or choose a default (anyway until support
is added to devices, both are identical).


Thanks,
Damien

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
> (add power gating and clock support).
> Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
> version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.

Thanks very much for taking this up. I'll read this email
through in more detail over the next day or so and provide
some feedback. In the meantime, just to save you having to do
a search-n-replace over all your changes:

> I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.

...this should be "Resettable" :-)

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
> I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
> (add power gating and clock support).
> Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
> version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.

I generally like this; I have some comments below.

> # CONTEXT
>
> We want to model the clock distribution between devices in qemu
> (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg00310.html).
> To this end, we need to make some changes in the reset procedure because
> the current one does not allow to propagate things (like clocks or IOs)
> between devices.
>
> In the other hand, we also want to add power gating support. For that we
> need state support in devices. This is related to reset because powering
> down then up a device is like a reset.
>
> # CURRENT STATE
> First here is a current state of reset usage:
>
> * Buses and Devices have a single reset method taking no parameter
>   (apart from bus/device object)
> * `qdev_reset_all`/`qbus_reset_all` functions call these reset methods
>   for a bus/dev subtree
>     + theses functions are used in ~20 places (mostly pci and scsi)
> * `device_reset` function only do a device local reset (does not walk
>   the bus subtree)
>     + device_reset is used in ~10 places
> * qemu_register_reset is used to register the:
>     + `qbus_reset_all` of top-level/orphan buses (2 places)
>     + ~100 of other reset functions (a lot of cpu related reset)
> * qemu_devices_reset reset everythings that has been registered with
>   qemu_register_reset
> * Machines may define a reset method that overrides qemu_devices_reset
>   global function (few machines do that)
>
> # PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
>
> I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.
>
> Having an interface simplify things since there is several reset entry
> points (at least Buses and Devices).
> Device and Bus objects will implement this interface.
>
> The ResetDomain will hold several Resetable objects and implement the
> interface too. The ResetDomain is needed to have at least a global/main
> ResetDomain to place buses and devices to replace the current
> qemu_register_reset system which only allow to register a function.

How does the ResetDomain fit in for a typical case where
we have an SoC container object with a handful of devices
(which are children of the container object)? Does the
SoC container object just directly implement the Resettable
interface and handle the propagation as ResetDomain would?
Does the SoC container create one or more ResetDomains and
add its child devices to them (if so, with what API)?

> I also propose to handle the warm/cold reset distinction. This point is
> explained below.
>
> # RESETABLE INTERFACE
>
> This Resetable interface describes the methods corresponding to a multi-
> phase reset system. This is based on Peter's proposal (see
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg03302.html).
>
> Here's the phases (I've tried to find adequate names):

I think this naming definitely works better than my 1/2/3 numbering...

>
> INIT PHASE: (Peter's phase 1)
>     Reset the object internal state, put a resetting flag and do the
>     same for the reset subtree. No side effect on other devices to
>     guarantee that, in a reset domain, everything get initialized first.
>     This corresponds mostly to what is currently done in the device/bus
>     reset method.
>
> HOLD PHASE: (This phase was not in Peter's proposal)
>     This phase allows to control a reset with a IO. When a IO control
>     reset procedure based on the IO level (not edge), we may need to
>     assert the reset, wait some time, and finally de-assert the reset.
>     The consequence is that such a device can stay in a "resetting
>     state" and may need to show this state to other devices through
>     its outputs. For example, a clock controller will typically shutdown
>     its clocks when it is in resetting state.
>
> RELEASE PHASE: (Peter's phase 2, modified)
>     This phase sets outputs to state after reset. For a clock controller
>     it starts the clocks. It also clears the "resetting" flag (this is
>     where is differs from Peter's phase 2). A device should not react to
>     inputs until this flag has been cleared. During this phase, outputs
>     are propagated in the reset domain (and outside the reset domain).
>
> POST PHASE: (Peter's phase 3)
>     This phase is kind of post-reset phase to do things that need the
>     guarantee to be after the propagation of outputs inside the reset
>     domain.

In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?

> The interface contains a method per phase:
>  void (*reset_init)(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
>  void (*reset_hold)(Resetable *rst);
>  void (*reset_release)(Resetable *rst);
>  void (*reset_post)(Resetable *rst);
>
> # WARM/COLD RESET
>
> Warm/Cold reset differences may exists in devices. We want a cold reset
> to handle power gating. (IMO powering off a device is identical to
> putting it in a cold reset state).
>
> To handle the difference between warm and cold reset, I propose to have
> a parameter to the init phase of Resetable interface.
> Other phases do not need the parameter since init phase should
> put warm/cold difference in the device state.
>
> # How to do a reset on a Resetable object
>
> There is 3 entry points. The first one is when we do a reset event. I
> call it `void resetable_trigger_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold)`. This
> the one used for example at machine startup to initialize everything.
> this should do the init, release and postphases in a row. I don't think
> hold phase must be done here since release will do the opposite just after.
>
> The 2 other entry points are dedicated to io control.
> void resetable_assert_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
> void resetable_deassert_reset(Resetable *rst);
> assert will do init and hold phases while deassert will release and post
> phase.

Could we avoid having these two flavours of reset (init->release->post
vs init->hold->release->post) by just saying that if you only care
about triggering reset you just call assert then deassert ?

> Obviously to correctly support this assert/de-assert a device must have
> special support in order to handle migration in "resetting" state. There
> is no migration problem while we only use trigger because there is no
> point during the reset were migration could occur.

What would need to be different? Just needing to migrate the state
of the 'resetting' flag ? (I think we could handle that in the
device base class.)

> # DeviceClass impact
>
> 4 new methods are added in Device:
> + 3 corresponding to the hold/release/post phases.
> + 1 to handle the cold reset init phase.
>
> The existing `reset` method is now the warm reset init phase. To handle
> the cold reset, a new `cold_reset` is added. The default behavior of
> this method is to call `reset` so that without any specific support cold
> and warm reset are the same.

I think it would be nicer if devices just implemented the Resettable
interface, so that we don't have two similar but not identical APIs
for handling the various phases.

> Instead of adding a cold reset method, we could add a parameter to the
> current reset. But there is a lot of places that would need some changes
> and I am really not sure we can do it automatically.

Coccinelle is very good for making wide-scale automatic changes.
I would prefer that we design (and work out a path for transitioning
to) the right API, rather than producing a weird API because we're
trying to retain some legacy method names and fit them into the
scheme.

If I'm a device that's aware of the new reset scheme, what
do I need to implement? Do I declare that I implement Resettable,
and provide the various methods for the phases? Or do I rely
on DeviceClass to implement Resettable, and provide DeviceClass
methods ?

(perhaps what we want is for new-system-aware devices to implement
Resettable directly, and also for DeviceClass to implement
Resettable with some methods that call old-school DeviceClass::reset,
for back-compatibility ? This feels like it's going to end up
with our "preferred" API being more boilerplatey than the
"deprecated" old API, though :-( )

> # BusClass impact
>
> I don't think we need to add any new method to the bus. Since a bus has
> no gpio, there is no propagation so phase hold/release/term are probably
> meaningless here. Maybe a cold reset method is useful here ?

I suspect buses in general should also be using the same APIs. For
instance a PCI controller can do a bus reset which should reset
all the devices on the bus. We don't model the individual
GPIO lines in a PCI bus connection but that doesn't mean there
isn't a logical equivalent there. Our support for bus resets
(mainly as you say SCSI and PCI) is basically a half-baked
implementation of a reset domain.

> # Impact on existing code
>
> There is not much impact. Basically the global qemu_reset should be
> changed to handle Resetable objects with a global ResetDomain. Also the
> 2 occurrences of qemu_register_reset(qbus_reset_all, ...) must be
> replaced to add the buses in the global ResetDomain.
>
> qdev/qbus_reset_all/device_reset behavior will be changed to trigger
> phase reset (instead of doing one dev/bus walk, there will be a walk per
> reset phase). We can add the cold/warm parameter (and modify the places
> were the functions are called) or choose a default (anyway until support
> is added to devices, both are identical).

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Damien Hedde]

On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>> I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
>> (add power gating and clock support).
>> Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
>> version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.
> 
> I generally like this; I have some comments below.
> 
>> # PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
>>
>> I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.
>>
>> Having an interface simplify things since there is several reset entry
>> points (at least Buses and Devices).
>> Device and Bus objects will implement this interface.
>>
>> The ResetDomain will hold several Resetable objects and implement the
>> interface too. The ResetDomain is needed to have at least a global/main
>> ResetDomain to place buses and devices to replace the current
>> qemu_register_reset system which only allow to register a function.
> 
> How does the ResetDomain fit in for a typical case where
> we have an SoC container object with a handful of devices
> (which are children of the container object)? Does the
> SoC container object just directly implement the Resettable
> interface and handle the propagation as ResetDomain would?
> Does the SoC container create one or more ResetDomains and
> add its child devices to them (if so, with what API)?

By SoC container, I suppose you mean a Machine object.
Both option are doable.
I did not really start to work on the Machine part as it could be done
in a second time when bus/device is done.
Containers, as a general principle (SoC containers or composed Devices),
should reset containees.
We could put a ResetDomain in the the Machine base object to help for
this or let each Machine handle this. Also the global ResetDomain could
be put into the Machine's ResetDomain at machine creation.

Right now, I only have 2 functions reset_domain_[un]register_object to
add/remove an object in a reset domain (which is just a list of Resettable).

> 
>> I also propose to handle the warm/cold reset distinction. This point is
>> explained below.
>>
>> # RESETABLE INTERFACE
>>
>> This Resetable interface describes the methods corresponding to a multi-
>> phase reset system. This is based on Peter's proposal (see
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2018-10/msg03302.html).
>>
>> Here's the phases (I've tried to find adequate names):
> 
> I think this naming definitely works better than my 1/2/3 numbering...
> 
>>
>> INIT PHASE: (Peter's phase 1)
>>     Reset the object internal state, put a resetting flag and do the
>>     same for the reset subtree. No side effect on other devices to
>>     guarantee that, in a reset domain, everything get initialized first.
>>     This corresponds mostly to what is currently done in the device/bus
>>     reset method.
>>
>> HOLD PHASE: (This phase was not in Peter's proposal)
>>     This phase allows to control a reset with a IO. When a IO control
>>     reset procedure based on the IO level (not edge), we may need to
>>     assert the reset, wait some time, and finally de-assert the reset.
>>     The consequence is that such a device can stay in a "resetting
>>     state" and may need to show this state to other devices through
>>     its outputs. For example, a clock controller will typically shutdown
>>     its clocks when it is in resetting state.
>>
>> RELEASE PHASE: (Peter's phase 2, modified)
>>     This phase sets outputs to state after reset. For a clock controller
>>     it starts the clocks. It also clears the "resetting" flag (this is
>>     where is differs from Peter's phase 2). A device should not react to
>>     inputs until this flag has been cleared. During this phase, outputs
>>     are propagated in the reset domain (and outside the reset domain).
>>
>> POST PHASE: (Peter's phase 3)
>>     This phase is kind of post-reset phase to do things that need the
>>     guarantee to be after the propagation of outputs inside the reset
>>     domain.
> 
> In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
> was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
> What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?

I hesitated to remove this phase (would be easy to add it after if it is
really needed). I see 2 cases where it might be useful.

To stay in my use case for clocks, here how it can be used: For an uart,
during release phase, the clock will propagate and only after every
release phases has been executed we will have the final/valid input
frequency.
So we can either recompute the uart baudrate every time the clock change
due to propagation or wait till post phase to do it once for all (and
initialize the backend parameters). But it is probably no big deal for
this case if we don't have post phase.

Another place where it may be needed is cases like the pc's machine
reset case (hw/i386/p.c) that reset everything then reset interrupt
controllers.
static void pc_machine_reset(void)
{
    CPUState *cs;
    X86CPU *cpu;
    qemu_devices_reset();

    /* Reset APIC after devices have been reset to cancel
     * any changes that qemu_devices_reset() might have done.
     */
    CPU_FOREACH(cs) {
        cpu = X86_CPU(cs);

        if (cpu->apic_state) {
            device_reset(cpu->apic_state);
        }
    }
}

> 
>> The interface contains a method per phase:
>>  void (*reset_init)(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
>>  void (*reset_hold)(Resetable *rst);
>>  void (*reset_release)(Resetable *rst);
>>  void (*reset_post)(Resetable *rst);
>>
>> # WARM/COLD RESET
>>
>> Warm/Cold reset differences may exists in devices. We want a cold reset
>> to handle power gating. (IMO powering off a device is identical to
>> putting it in a cold reset state).
>>
>> To handle the difference between warm and cold reset, I propose to have
>> a parameter to the init phase of Resetable interface.
>> Other phases do not need the parameter since init phase should
>> put warm/cold difference in the device state.
>>
>> # How to do a reset on a Resetable object
>>
>> There is 3 entry points. The first one is when we do a reset event. I
>> call it `void resetable_trigger_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold)`. This
>> the one used for example at machine startup to initialize everything.
>> this should do the init, release and postphases in a row. I don't think
>> hold phase must be done here since release will do the opposite just after.
>>
>> The 2 other entry points are dedicated to io control.
>> void resetable_assert_reset(Resetable *rst, bool cold);
>> void resetable_deassert_reset(Resetable *rst);
>> assert will do init and hold phases while deassert will release and post
>> phase.
> 
> Could we avoid having these two flavours of reset (init->release->post
> vs init->hold->release->post) by just saying that if you only care
> about triggering reset you just call assert then deassert ?

Yes. In the end, results of both must be the same (without maybe more
intermediate glitches for the init->hold->release->post).

> 
>> Obviously to correctly support this assert/de-assert a device must have
>> special support in order to handle migration in "resetting" state. There
>> is no migration problem while we only use trigger because there is no
>> point during the reset were migration could occur.
> 
> What would need to be different? Just needing to migrate the state
> of the 'resetting' flag ? (I think we could handle that in the
> device base class.)

That's it. It would be nice to handle this in the base class but I don't
know how I can do that. vmsd field has no inheritance mechanism. Should
we add some base/background migration to every device ?

> 
>> # DeviceClass impact
>>
>> 4 new methods are added in Device:
>> + 3 corresponding to the hold/release/post phases.
>> + 1 to handle the cold reset init phase.
>>
>> The existing `reset` method is now the warm reset init phase. To handle
>> the cold reset, a new `cold_reset` is added. The default behavior of
>> this method is to call `reset` so that without any specific support cold
>> and warm reset are the same.
> 
> I think it would be nicer if devices just implemented the Resettable
> interface, so that we don't have two similar but not identical APIs
> for handling the various phases.
> 
>> Instead of adding a cold reset method, we could add a parameter to the
>> current reset. But there is a lot of places that would need some changes
>> and I am really not sure we can do it automatically.
> 
> Coccinelle is very good for making wide-scale automatic changes.
> I would prefer that we design (and work out a path for transitioning
> to) the right API, rather than producing a weird API because we're
> trying to retain some legacy method names and fit them into the
> scheme.
> 
> If I'm a device that's aware of the new reset scheme, what
> do I need to implement? Do I declare that I implement Resettable,
> and provide the various methods for the phases? Or do I rely
> on DeviceClass to implement Resettable, and provide DeviceClass
> methods ?

It can rely on DeviceClass to implement Resettable and have to provide
DeviceClass methods.

> 
> (perhaps what we want is for new-system-aware devices to implement
> Resettable directly, and also for DeviceClass to implement
> Resettable with some methods that call old-school DeviceClass::reset,
> for back-compatibility ? This feels like it's going to end up
> with our "preferred" API being more boilerplatey than the
> "deprecated" old API, though :-( )

What I started to do is make Deviceclass implements Resettable and add
additional methods in DeviceClass corresponding to the "local" version
of the Resettable methods.

So in DeviceClass I have 4 news methods
   cold_reset (this forms reset_init with existing reset, we could name
               it reset_init and see how to replace existing reset)
   reset_release
   reset_hold
   reset_post
These methods are empty by default and should be implemented by
specialization classes to do local reset operations.

And there is the 4 methods of the resettable interface:
   reset_init
   reset_release
   reset_hold
   reset_post
These methods are implemented by default to:
+ call the local version
+ call the sub-buses methods

We can choose to keep only the interface methods and let specialization
overrides them to do local stuff and call the DeviceClass's version to
also do sub-buses reset.

This approach simplify specialization because all the dirty things (like
handling "resetting flag") are done by the interface methods which do
not need to be overriden in normal use cases (only if we do not want to
call sub-buses reset for some reason).

The reason I initially "duplicate" the methods is because of
"device_reset" which currently only do local reset (in opposite to
qdev_reset_all) and is used at several places. I'm not sure at which
point we could drop this and have a single reset for devices: maybe such
devices such devices don't have sub-buses and therefore the distinction
is meaningless.

> 
>> # BusClass impact
>>
>> I don't think we need to add any new method to the bus. Since a bus has
>> no gpio, there is no propagation so phase hold/release/term are probably
>> meaningless here. Maybe a cold reset method is useful here ?
> 
> I suspect buses in general should also be using the same APIs. For
> instance a PCI controller can do a bus reset which should reset
> all the devices on the bus. We don't model the individual
> GPIO lines in a PCI bus connection but that doesn't mean there
> isn't a logical equivalent there. Our support for bus resets
> (mainly as you say SCSI and PCI) is basically a half-baked
> implementation of a reset domain.

I was not clear enough. BusClass also implements the Resettable
interface and has the 4 phase methods like DeviceClass that call reset
on sub-devices on the bus. But I don't think we need local version of
all these methods because there is no `bus_reset` function (like
device_reset) and hold/release/post phases will probably never need to
be overriden to do local stuff.

> 
>> # Impact on existing code
>>
>> There is not much impact. Basically the global qemu_reset should be
>> changed to handle Resetable objects with a global ResetDomain. Also the
>> 2 occurrences of qemu_register_reset(qbus_reset_all, ...) must be
>> replaced to add the buses in the global ResetDomain.
>>
>> qdev/qbus_reset_all/device_reset behavior will be changed to trigger
>> phase reset (instead of doing one dev/bus walk, there will be a walk per
>> reset phase). We can add the cold/warm parameter (and modify the places
>> were the functions are called) or choose a default (anyway until support
>> is added to devices, both are identical).
> 

Thanks,
Damien

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Peter Maydell]

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
> >> I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
> >> (add power gating and clock support).
> >> Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
> >> version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.
> >
> > I generally like this; I have some comments below.
> >
> >> # PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
> >>
> >> I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.
> >>
> >> Having an interface simplify things since there is several reset entry
> >> points (at least Buses and Devices).
> >> Device and Bus objects will implement this interface.
> >>
> >> The ResetDomain will hold several Resetable objects and implement the
> >> interface too. The ResetDomain is needed to have at least a global/main
> >> ResetDomain to place buses and devices to replace the current
> >> qemu_register_reset system which only allow to register a function.
> >
> > How does the ResetDomain fit in for a typical case where
> > we have an SoC container object with a handful of devices
> > (which are children of the container object)? Does the
> > SoC container object just directly implement the Resettable
> > interface and handle the propagation as ResetDomain would?
> > Does the SoC container create one or more ResetDomains and
> > add its child devices to them (if so, with what API)?
>
> By SoC container, I suppose you mean a Machine object.

No, I mean something like the TYPE_NRF51_SOC device.
This isn't a machine, it's a device that represents an SoC,
and which is pretty much just a container that wires up
all the devices that an SoC has. The Machine represents
an entire board, and usually will create an SoC, some memory
and perhaps a few other devices.

> Right now, I only have 2 functions reset_domain_[un]register_object to
> add/remove an object in a reset domain (which is just a list of Resettable).

OK, so whether devices are in a reset domain object
is distinct from what object they are QOM children of ?

> > In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
> > was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
> > What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?
>
> I hesitated to remove this phase (would be easy to add it after if it is
> really needed). I see 2 cases where it might be useful.
>
> To stay in my use case for clocks, here how it can be used: For an uart,
> during release phase, the clock will propagate and only after every
> release phases has been executed we will have the final/valid input
> frequency.
> So we can either recompute the uart baudrate every time the clock change
> due to propagation or wait till post phase to do it once for all (and
> initialize the backend parameters). But it is probably no big deal for
> this case if we don't have post phase.

I think I'd rather have the model be simpler rather than
complicate it for the sake of optimisation. It's not like
we reset very frequently...

> Another place where it may be needed is cases like the pc's machine
> reset case (hw/i386/p.c) that reset everything then reset interrupt
> controllers.
> static void pc_machine_reset(void)
> {
>     CPUState *cs;
>     X86CPU *cpu;
>     qemu_devices_reset();
>
>     /* Reset APIC after devices have been reset to cancel
>      * any changes that qemu_devices_reset() might have done.
>      */
>     CPU_FOREACH(cs) {
>         cpu = X86_CPU(cs);
>
>         if (cpu->apic_state) {
>             device_reset(cpu->apic_state);
>         }
>     }
> }

I think this is just working around the fact that we don't
have a multiphase reset, so the APIC doesn't know whether it
got an inbound asserted interrupt while it is being
reset or not. We should be able to get rid of this code once
we have converted things, I hope.

> >> Obviously to correctly support this assert/de-assert a device must have
> >> special support in order to handle migration in "resetting" state. There
> >> is no migration problem while we only use trigger because there is no
> >> point during the reset were migration could occur.
> >
> > What would need to be different? Just needing to migrate the state
> > of the 'resetting' flag ? (I think we could handle that in the
> > device base class.)
>
> That's it. It would be nice to handle this in the base class but I don't
> know how I can do that. vmsd field has no inheritance mechanism. Should
> we add some base/background migration to every device ?

I'm not sure exactly. (What I was thinking we ought to end up
with is a migration subsection which is used only if the flag
happens to be true; but I'm not sure how to add subsections
from the base class.) I suggest you do the first version
with a TODO note about handling migration of the resetting
flag and we'll look at how to do it cleanly then.

> > (perhaps what we want is for new-system-aware devices to implement
> > Resettable directly, and also for DeviceClass to implement
> > Resettable with some methods that call old-school DeviceClass::reset,
> > for back-compatibility ? This feels like it's going to end up
> > with our "preferred" API being more boilerplatey than the
> > "deprecated" old API, though :-( )
>
> What I started to do is make Deviceclass implements Resettable and add
> additional methods in DeviceClass corresponding to the "local" version
> of the Resettable methods.
>
> So in DeviceClass I have 4 news methods
>    cold_reset (this forms reset_init with existing reset, we could name
>                it reset_init and see how to replace existing reset)
>    reset_release
>    reset_hold
>    reset_post
> These methods are empty by default and should be implemented by
> specialization classes to do local reset operations.
>
> And there is the 4 methods of the resettable interface:
>    reset_init
>    reset_release
>    reset_hold
>    reset_post
> These methods are implemented by default to:
> + call the local version
> + call the sub-buses methods

OK, but I'd definitely prefer to have the names match up here.

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

Hi Damien,

On 3/1/19 5:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>> On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
>>> was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
>>> What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?
>>
>> I hesitated to remove this phase (would be easy to add it after if it is
>> really needed). I see 2 cases where it might be useful.

If I RELEASE a PLL which need some time to warm up and stabilize, once
stabilized it moves the device to the POST phase where it is ready?

>>
>> To stay in my use case for clocks, here how it can be used: For an uart,
>> during release phase, the clock will propagate and only after every
>> release phases has been executed we will have the final/valid input
>> frequency.
>> So we can either recompute the uart baudrate every time the clock change
>> due to propagation or wait till post phase to do it once for all (and
>> initialize the backend parameters). But it is probably no big deal for
>> this case if we don't have post phase.
> 
> I think I'd rather have the model be simpler rather than
> complicate it for the sake of optimisation. It's not like
> we reset very frequently...

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Peter Maydell]

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Damien,
>
> On 3/1/19 5:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>> In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
> >>> was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
> >>> What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?
> >>
> >> I hesitated to remove this phase (would be easy to add it after if it is
> >> really needed). I see 2 cases where it might be useful.
>
> If I RELEASE a PLL which need some time to warm up and stabilize, once
> stabilized it moves the device to the POST phase where it is ready?

No, I think that things like that where the device is not ready
for some period of time after reset should be handled by
the device itself. Typically we just ignore this and have
PLLs become stable instantaneously. If you really needed to
model it you'd just have a timer of some kind inside the
device model.

(This matches h/w behaviour -- a PLL which is not yet stable
is not still in reset, it's out of reset but has different
behaviour for an initial period of time before it stabilizes.)

thanks
-- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 10:59:30AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:41, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Damien,
> >
> > On 3/1/19 5:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
> > >> On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > >>> In my design the only thing that I thought would happen in phase 3
> > >>> was the "clear the resetting flag", but you've moved that to RELEASE.
> > >>> What's left ? Do you have a concrete example where we'd need this?
> > >>
> > >> I hesitated to remove this phase (would be easy to add it after if it is
> > >> really needed). I see 2 cases where it might be useful.
> >
> > If I RELEASE a PLL which need some time to warm up and stabilize, once
> > stabilized it moves the device to the POST phase where it is ready?
> 
> No, I think that things like that where the device is not ready
> for some period of time after reset should be handled by
> the device itself. Typically we just ignore this and have
> PLLs become stable instantaneously. If you really needed to
> model it you'd just have a timer of some kind inside the
> device model.

Right, this is how we tend to model things for the Xilinx parts. We usually don't care
about the delayed behaviour though.


> 
> (This matches h/w behaviour -- a PLL which is not yet stable
> is not still in reset, it's out of reset but has different
> behaviour for an initial period of time before it stabilizes.)
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Edgar E. Iglesias]

Hi Damien and others,

A few questions from my side.

We sometimes see that wires from generic GPIO blocks get connected to reset inputs.
This happens both to off-chip perihperals but we also see it on-chip.

To avoid having GPIO modules know that some of their outputs are being used as
reset signals it would be nice to have a reset proxy that allows any qemu_irq to
drive resets for a given device. Perhaps even with built-in options for both interpreting
"active-low" and "active-high". I think it would even be useful to have this
in qdev but that may be pushing it too far. Any thoughts on that?

Have you thought about what happens if someone does an MMIO access to a device while
its reset is active? Were you planning to have some "default" SysBus level handling to
block MMIO while in reset or anything like that? Or would that be handled individually
by each device model?

Another question is regarding reset of CPUs. It would be nice to be able to expose
similar interfaces and have some defined behaviour for CPUs that are in reset. E.g,
if reset is active the CPU does not execute etc.

Cheers,
Edgar

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Damien Hedde]

Hi Edgar,

On 3/4/19 11:29 AM, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> Hi Damien and others,
> 
> A few questions from my side.
> 
> We sometimes see that wires from generic GPIO blocks get connected to reset inputs.
> This happens both to off-chip perihperals but we also see it on-chip.
> 
> To avoid having GPIO modules know that some of their outputs are being used as
> reset signals it would be nice to have a reset proxy that allows any qemu_irq to
> drive resets for a given device. Perhaps even with built-in options for both interpreting
> "active-low" and "active-high". I think it would even be useful to have this
> in qdev but that may be pushing it too far. Any thoughts on that?
Do you mean for Device or other objects as well ? I planned to add a
function so that a Device could declare one of its gpio/irq input as
reset. It is straightforward since we just need to set the proper
handler to the irq. The device controlling the irq (output) would have
no knowledge of that.

> 
> Have you thought about what happens if someone does an MMIO access to a device while
> its reset is active? Were you planning to have some "default" SysBus level handling to
> block MMIO while in reset or anything like that? Or would that be handled individually
> by each device model?Right know it would be handled individually by each model. With
In my first power/clock gating implementation (last year), I tried to do
a kind of default deactivation of mmio memory region in SysbusDevice
object and it appears to me it is complicated for 2 reasons:
+ A device has to handle its memory region flag/properties during
migration (if we automatically disable things, should we automatically
migrate this ?)
+ Some memory regions may already be disabled, so we cannot simply
disabled the mmio array and re-enabled it later.

Right know for the cadence_uart, I check this in the Device itself.

I'm no expert of memory regions, so there is maybe a simple solution I
don't see.
> 
> Another question is regarding reset of CPUs. It would be nice to be able to expose
> similar interfaces and have some defined behaviour for CPUs that are in reset. E.g,
> if reset is active the CPU does not execute etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Edgar
> 

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] multi phase reset

[Damien Hedde]

On 3/1/19 5:52 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:34, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/1/19 12:43 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 10:49, Damien Hedde <damien.hedde@greensocs.com> wrote:
>>>> I had more thought about the reset problem and what we want to achieve
>>>> (add power gating and clock support).
>>>> Feel free to comment. I'll start to implement this and send a first
>>>> version with a reroll of everything when it's ready.
>>>
>>> I generally like this; I have some comments below.
>>>
>>>> # PROPOSAL OVERVIEW
>>>>
>>>> I propose to add a Resetable interface and a ResetDomain object.
>>>>
>>>> Having an interface simplify things since there is several reset entry
>>>> points (at least Buses and Devices).
>>>> Device and Bus objects will implement this interface.
>>>>
>>>> The ResetDomain will hold several Resetable objects and implement the
>>>> interface too. The ResetDomain is needed to have at least a global/main
>>>> ResetDomain to place buses and devices to replace the current
>>>> qemu_register_reset system which only allow to register a function.
>>>
>>> How does the ResetDomain fit in for a typical case where
>>> we have an SoC container object with a handful of devices
>>> (which are children of the container object)? Does the
>>> SoC container object just directly implement the Resettable
>>> interface and handle the propagation as ResetDomain would?
>>> Does the SoC container create one or more ResetDomains and
>>> add its child devices to them (if so, with what API)?
>>
>> By SoC container, I suppose you mean a Machine object.
> 
> No, I mean something like the TYPE_NRF51_SOC device.
> This isn't a machine, it's a device that represents an SoC,
> and which is pretty much just a container that wires up
> all the devices that an SoC has. The Machine represents
> an entire board, and usually will create an SoC, some memory
> and perhaps a few other devices.
> 
>> Right now, I only have 2 functions reset_domain_[un]register_object to
>> add/remove an object in a reset domain (which is just a list of Resettable).
> 
> OK, so whether devices are in a reset domain object
> is distinct from what object they are QOM children of ?

Yes, it is a totally independent pool of objects.

Regarding device composition, such as in the soc container you mention,
we can choose to handle it in the base class (TYPE_DEVICE or
TYPE_SYSBUS_DEVICE) by walking the children and look for Resettable
objects. But this would change the current reset way of doing things
which requires composed device to explicitly reset sub-devices.

I choose to implicitly use device/bus hierarchy to propagate reset but
it is maybe a bad idea. We can instead use qom parent/child relationship
and make some explicit bus-level reset domains (right now it is explicit
through the qdev/bus_reset_all). What do you think is best ?

Thanks,
Damien