Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox

[Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 8:31 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:30 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jassi
> > >
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:28 AM <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted
> > > > > data via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox
> > > > > receiver is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return
> > > > > data when it returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> > > > > An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> > > > > This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on
> > > > > SoCs which either don't have a separate management processor or on
> > > > > which such a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could
> > > > > be the SCP interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch https://lore
> > > > > .kernel.org%2Fpatchwork%2Fpatch%2F812999%2F&amp;data=02%7C0
> > 1%7
> > > > Cpeng.fa
> > > > >
> > > >
> > n%40nxp.com%7C1237677cb01044ad714508d6f59f648f%7C686ea1d3bc2b4
> > > > c6fa92cd
> > > > >
> > > >
> > 99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636966462272457978&amp;sdata=Hzgeu43m5
> > > > ZkeRMtL8Bx
> > > > > gUm3%2B6FBObib1OPHPlSccE%2B0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > V2:
> > > > >  Add interrupts notification support.
> > > > >
> > > > >  drivers/mailbox/Kconfig                 |   7 ++
> > > > >  drivers/mailbox/Makefile                |   2 +
> > > > >  drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c       | 190
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  include/linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h |  10 ++
> > > > >  4 files changed, 209 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c  create
> > mode
> > > > > 100644 include/linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig index
> > > > > 595542bfae85..c3bd0f1ddcd8 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,13 @@ config ARM_MHU
> > > > >           The controller has 3 mailbox channels, the last of which can
> > be
> > > > >           used in Secure mode only.
> > > > >
> > > > > +config ARM_SMC_MBOX
> > > > > +       tristate "Generic ARM smc mailbox"
> > > > > +       depends on OF && HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> > > > > +       help
> > > > > +         Generic mailbox driver which uses ARM smc calls to call into
> > > > > +         firmware for triggering mailboxes.
> > > > > +
> > > > >  config IMX_MBOX
> > > > >         tristate "i.MX Mailbox"
> > > > >         depends on ARCH_MXC || COMPILE_TEST diff --git
> > > > > a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile index
> > > > > c22fad6f696b..93918a84c91b 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX_TEST)      +=
> > mailbox-test.o
> > > > >
> > > > >  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MHU)  += arm_mhu.o
> > > > >
> > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX)     += arm-smc-mailbox.o
> > > > > +
> > > > >  obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_MBOX) += imx-mailbox.o
> > > > >
> > > > >  obj-$(CONFIG_ARMADA_37XX_RWTM_MBOX)    +=
> > > > armada-37xx-rwtm-mailbox.o
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> > > > > b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..fef6e38d8b98
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
> > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd.
> > > > > + * Copyright 2019 NXP
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/device.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h> #include
> > > > > +<linux/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC   BIT(0)
> > > > > +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USB_IRQ   BIT(1)
> > > > > +
> > > > IRQ bit is unused (and unnecessary IMO)
> > > >
> > > > > +struct arm_smc_chan_data {
> > > > > +       u32 function_id;
> > > > > +       u32 flags;
> > > > > +       int irq;
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data) {
> > > > > +       struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
> > > > > +       struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd *cmd = data;
> > > > > +       struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > > > +       u32 function_id;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (chan_data->function_id != UINT_MAX)
> > > > > +               function_id = chan_data->function_id;
> > > > > +       else
> > > > > +               function_id = cmd->a0;
> > > > > +
> > > > Not sure about chan_data->function_id.  Why restrict from DT?
> > > > 'a0' is the function_id register, let the user pass func-id via the 'a0' like
> > other
> > > > values via 'a[1-7]'
> > >
> > > Missed to reply this comment.
> > >
> > > The firmware driver might not have func-id, such as SCMI/SCPI.
> > > So add an optional func-id to let smc mailbox driver could
> > > use smc SiP func id.
> > >
> > There is no end to conforming to protocols. Controller drivers should
> > be written having no particular client in mind.
>
> If the func-id needs be passed from user, then the chan_id suggested
> by Sudeep should also be passed from user, not in mailbox driver.
>
Isn't it already so?

> Jassi, so from your point, arm_smc_send_data just send a0 - a6
> to firmware, right?
>
Yes.

> Sudeep, Andre, Florian,
>
> What's your suggestion? SCMI not support, do you have
> plan to add smc transport in SCMI?
>
Not replying on their behalf .... but SCMI should eventually support
more than MHU. And I can't see why that matters here?

thanks.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel