From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1637C433DF for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E48B2065F for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="reedSvxe" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729439AbgEUTmY (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 15:42:24 -0400 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.141]:51290 "EHLO fllv0015.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728635AbgEUTmX (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 15:42:23 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04LJg7xr047716; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:07 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1590090127; bh=Pg2UkZy+0TdS3g2QD6McuO3ZAESXCUACONtu3MwDDlI=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=reedSvxegdhEDsggnwndaTlBRaush6ltHMZSPxO2Rd4h1VIiGY65NH0mXUlq7fylm ejWsejwLusor/vq+cxVA2v6IVEvwFTULZnKK1oaL2N0mi3Yd4B9NJxidGRaiajuqHj xxTDZFj7WmchBUATQ3O3RRS2fkpw5F1Q/53Xqy/Y= Received: from DLEE106.ent.ti.com (dlee106.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.36]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04LJg7GL116554 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:07 -0500 Received: from DLEE112.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.23) by DLEE106.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:06 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DLEE112.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:07 -0500 Received: from [10.250.48.148] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04LJg67b097816; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:06 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace version To: Bjorn Andersson CC: Rob Herring , Mathieu Poirier , Clement Leger , Loic Pallardy , Arnaud Pouliquen , Lokesh Vutla , , , , References: <20200325204701.16862-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200325204701.16862-4-s-anna@ti.com> <20200521180417.GJ408178@builder.lan> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <997d6f9a-64ba-7a89-e909-9a5a474120b0@ti.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:42:06 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200521180417.GJ408178@builder.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-remoteproc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org Hi Bjorn, On 5/21/20 1:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 25 Mar 13:47 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote: > >> Introduce a new trace entry resource structure that accommodates >> a 64-bit device address to support 64-bit processors. This is to >> be used using an overloaded version value of 1 in the upper 32-bits >> of the previous resource type field. The new resource still uses >> 32-bits for the length field (followed by a 32-bit reserved field, >> so can be updated in the future), which is a sufficiently large >> trace buffer size. A 32-bit padding field also had to be added >> to align the device address on a 64-bit boundary, and match the >> usage on the firmware side. >> >> The remoteproc debugfs logic also has been adjusted accordingly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++----- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++----- >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index 53bc37c508c6..b9a097990862 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -609,21 +609,45 @@ void rproc_vdev_release(struct kref *ref) >> * >> * Returns 0 on success, or an appropriate error code otherwise >> */ >> -static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc, >> +static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, void *rsc, >> int offset, int avail, u16 ver) >> { >> struct rproc_debug_trace *trace; >> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; >> + struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc1; >> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *rsc2; >> char name[15]; >> + size_t rsc_size; >> + u32 reserved; >> + u64 da; >> + u32 len; >> + >> + if (!ver) { > > This looks like a switch to me, but I also do think this looks rather > crude, if you spin off the tail of this function and call it from a > rproc_handle_trace() and rproc_handle_trace64() I believe this would be > cleaner. Yeah, ok. Will refactor for this in v2. > >> + rsc1 = (struct fw_rsc_trace *)rsc; >> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc1); >> + reserved = rsc1->reserved; >> + da = rsc1->da; >> + len = rsc1->len; >> + } else if (ver == 1) { >> + rsc2 = (struct fw_rsc_trace2 *)rsc; >> + rsc_size = sizeof(*rsc2); >> + reserved = rsc2->reserved; >> + da = rsc2->da; >> + len = rsc2->len; >> + } else { >> + dev_err(dev, "unsupported trace rsc version %d\n", ver); > > If we use "type" to describe your 64-bit-da-trace then this sanity check > would have been taken care of by the core. > >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } >> >> - if (sizeof(*rsc) > avail) { >> + if (rsc_size > avail) { >> dev_err(dev, "trace rsc is truncated\n"); >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> >> /* make sure reserved bytes are zeroes */ >> - if (rsc->reserved) { >> - dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes\n"); >> + if (reserved) { >> + dev_err(dev, "trace rsc has non zero reserved bytes, value = 0x%x\n", >> + reserved); >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> >> @@ -632,8 +656,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc, >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> /* set the trace buffer dma properties */ >> - trace->trace_mem.len = rsc->len; >> - trace->trace_mem.da = rsc->da; >> + trace->trace_mem.len = len; >> + trace->trace_mem.da = da; >> >> /* set pointer on rproc device */ >> trace->rproc = rproc; >> @@ -652,8 +676,8 @@ static int rproc_handle_trace(struct rproc *rproc, struct fw_rsc_trace *rsc, >> >> rproc->num_traces++; >> >> - dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%x, len 0x%x\n", >> - name, rsc->da, rsc->len); >> + dev_dbg(dev, "%s added: da 0x%llx, len 0x%x\n", >> + name, da, len); >> >> return 0; >> } >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c >> index 3560eed7a360..ff43736db45a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c >> @@ -192,7 +192,8 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p) >> struct resource_table *table = rproc->table_ptr; >> struct fw_rsc_carveout *c; >> struct fw_rsc_devmem *d; >> - struct fw_rsc_trace *t; >> + struct fw_rsc_trace *t1; >> + struct fw_rsc_trace2 *t2; >> struct fw_rsc_vdev *v; >> int i, j; >> >> @@ -205,6 +206,7 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p) >> int offset = table->offset[i]; >> struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr = (void *)table + offset; >> void *rsc = (void *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); >> + u16 ver = hdr->st.v; >> >> switch (hdr->st.t) { >> case RSC_CARVEOUT: >> @@ -230,13 +232,32 @@ static int rproc_rsc_table_show(struct seq_file *seq, void *p) >> seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", d->name); >> break; >> case RSC_TRACE: >> - t = rsc; >> - seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is of type %s\n", >> - i, types[hdr->st.t]); >> - seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n", t->da); >> - seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n", t->len); >> - seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n", t->reserved); >> - seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t->name); >> + if (ver == 0) { > > Again, this is a switch, here in a switch. Just defining a new > RSC_TRACE64 type would reduce the amount of code here... OK. > >> + t1 = rsc; >> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n", >> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%x\n", >> + t1->da); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n", >> + t1->len); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n", >> + t1->reserved); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t1->name); >> + } else if (ver == 1) { >> + t2 = rsc; >> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is version %d of type %s\n", >> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Device Address 0x%llx\n", >> + t2->da); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Length 0x%x Bytes\n", >> + t2->len); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Reserved (should be zero) [%d]\n", >> + t2->reserved); >> + seq_printf(seq, " Name %s\n\n", t2->name); >> + } else { >> + seq_printf(seq, "Entry %d is an unsupported version %d of type %s\n", >> + i, ver, types[hdr->st.t]); >> + } >> break; >> case RSC_VDEV: >> v = rsc; >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> index 526d3cb45e37..3b3bea42f8b1 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h >> @@ -243,6 +243,32 @@ struct fw_rsc_trace { >> u8 name[32]; >> } __packed; >> >> +/** >> + * struct fw_rsc_trace2 - trace buffer declaration supporting 64-bits >> + * @padding: initial padding after type field for aligned 64-bit access >> + * @da: device address (64-bit) >> + * @len: length (in bytes) >> + * @reserved: reserved (must be zero) >> + * @name: human-readable name of the trace buffer >> + * >> + * This resource entry is an enhanced version of the fw_rsc_trace resourec entry >> + * and the provides equivalent functionality but designed for 64-bit remote >> + * processors. >> + * >> + * @da specifies the device address of the buffer, @len specifies >> + * its size, and @name may contain a human readable name of the trace buffer. >> + * >> + * After booting the remote processor, the trace buffers are exposed to the >> + * user via debugfs entries (called trace0, trace1, etc..). >> + */ >> +struct fw_rsc_trace2 { > > Sounds more like fw_rsc_trace64 to me - in particular since the version > of trace2 is 1... Yeah, will rename this. > >> + u32 padding; >> + u64 da; >> + u32 len; >> + u32 reserved; > > What's the purpose of this reserved field? Partly to make sure the entire resource is aligned on an 8-byte, and partly copied over from fw_rsc_trace entry. I guess 32-bits is already large enough of a size for trace entries irrespective of 32-bit or 64-bit traces, so I doubt if we want to make the len field also a u64. regards Suman > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> + u8 name[32]; >> +} __packed; >> + >> /** >> * struct fw_rsc_vdev_vring - vring descriptor entry >> * @da: device address >> -- >> 2.23.0 >>