From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s-anna@ti.com (Suman Anna) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:00:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCHv3 00/14] drivers: mailbox: framework creation In-Reply-To: References: <1363145021-14339-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <37C860A02101E749A747FA2D3C1E3C504A5DF7@DLEE11.ent.ti.com> <37C860A02101E749A747FA2D3C1E3C504A63B4@DLEE11.ent.ti.com> <51779304.4040003@st.com> <517867E1.7050301@ti.com> <5179AE2F.3040403@ti.com> <517B242D.7040902@ti.com> Message-ID: <517E9907.4030106@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Jassi, On 04/26/2013 11:51 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: > Hi Suman, > >>> On 26 April 2013 03:59, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> On 04/25/2013 12:20 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: > >>> I never said no-buffering and I never said buffering should be in >>> controller drivers. In fact I don't remember ever objecting to how >>> buffering is done in TI's framework. >>> A controller could service only 1 request at a time so lets give it >>> just 1 at a time. Let the API handle the complexity of buffering. >>> >> >> Alright, guess this got lost in translation :). I interpreted based on >> the fact that you wanted to get rid of the size field from the >> mailbox_msg definition. Do you have a different mechanism in mind for >> the buffering compared to the present one? >> > Sure, a very simple but efficient one. I had started on pseudo code > implementation the day I first replied, but now I have real code with > the PL320 controller and the Highbank client converted to the API. All > that I say features in the new design. Polishing and documentation > will take just a few hours more. You could see end to end what I have > been talking about. >> >> OK, I didn't think of a no RTR interrupt-based controller. I would thing >> that such a controller is very rudimentary. I wonder if there are any >> controllers like this out there. >> > One of my controllers is like that :) I hope it does have a status register atleast, and not the "neither report nor sense RTR" type. > >>> >>> BTW, TI's RX mechanism too seems broken for common API. Receiving >>> every few bytes via 'notify' mechanism is very inefficient. Imagine a >>> platform with no shared memory between co-processors and the local >>> wants to diagnose the remote by asking critical data at least KBs in >>> size. >> >> No shared memory between co-processors and a relatively slow wire >> transport is a bad architecture design to begin with. >> > IMHO it's only about private memory. Even if the controller transfers, > say, 10bytes/interrupt there could always be a requirement to read > some 1MB region of remote's private memory. And the same logic implies > that our TX too should be as fast as possible - the remote might need > its 1MB firmware over the link. So let us just try to serve all > designs rather than evaluate them :) > > >>> So when API has nothing to do with received packet and the controller >>> has to get rid of it asap so as to be able to receive the next, IMHO >>> there should be short-circuit from controller to client via the API. >>> No delay, no buffering of RX. >> >> The current TI design is based on the fact that we can get multiple >> messages on a single interrupt due to the h/w fifo and the driver takes >> care of the bottom-half. Leaving it to the client is putting a lot of >> faith in the client and doesn't scale to multiple clients. The client >> would have to perform mostly the same as the driver is doing - so this >> goes back to the base discussion point that we have - which is the lack >> of support for atomic_context receivers in the current code. I perceive >> this as an attribute of the controller/mailbox device itself rather than >> the client. >> > Sorry, I don't understand the concern about faith. > If the controller h/w absolutely can not tell the remote(sender) of a > received packet (as seems to be your case), its driver shouldn't even > try to demux the received messages. The client driver must know which > remotes could send it a message and how to discern them on the > platform. Some 'server' RX client is needed here. No demuxing, deliver the message to the different clients. It is a protocol agreement between the clients on what the message means. Think of this scenario akin to shared interrupts. > If the controller could indeed map received packet onto remotes, then > ideally the controller driver should declare one (RX only) channel for > each such remote and demux packets onto them. > In either case, 'notify' mechanism is not necessary. The notify mechanism was the top-half on the interrupt handling. The faith part is coming from the fact that you expect all the clients to do the equivalent of the bottom-half (which would mean some duplication in the different clients), the OMAP scenario is such that all the different link interrupts (both rx & tx) are mapped onto a single physical interrupt. I think this may not be applicable to your usecase, wherein you probably expect a response back before proceeding. > > >> I agree that all remote-ends will not >> be able to cope up intermixed requests, but isn't this again a >> controller architecture dependent? >> > I think it's more about remote's protocol implementation than > controller's architecture. Right, I meant functional integration. > If tomorrow TI's remote firmware introduces a new set of critical > commands that may arrive only in a particular sequence, you'll find > yourself sharing a ride on our dinghy :) > And Andy already explained where we come from. This is almost always true when your remote is for offloading some h/w operations. regards Suman