From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from [217.148.43.144] ([217.148.43.144]:51388 "EHLO mnementh.co.uk" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751413AbdGRPPC (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:15:02 -0400 Subject: Re: brcmfmac bus level addressing issues. From: Ian Molton To: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Cc: Arend Van Spriel , Franky Lin , brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com, Hante Meuleman References: <87cdbbc12b504e89d2bd1c33df6a6bf6@mail.gmail.com> <5eb895bd-58cf-70fd-3c00-c8fed86aed79@mnementh.co.uk> <6fe08666ca09bf3c1d4476fdad8ce97a@mail.gmail.com> <222e2bc1-4d8f-8133-4fa7-51a48f3de785@mnementh.co.uk> Message-ID: <0395e3f6-6bd9-cbad-0fe2-9a5d32a9baa6@mnementh.co.uk> (sfid-20170718_171507_571057_ADAA65A5) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:14:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <222e2bc1-4d8f-8133-4fa7-51a48f3de785@mnementh.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Reposting as CC's got reset (not by me). On 18/07/17 15:36, Ian Molton wrote: > On 18/07/17 13:50, Hante Meuleman wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> - Ok, I may not have been reading all the code that well, but I'm pretty >> sure, you cannot do without brcmf_pcie_select_core, at least that is how I >> "intended" it when I wrote it. Try buying a macbook with a 43602, remove >> the function and all calls (8 in total) and try booting it. I might be >> mistaken but I'm 99% sure that it won't, give it a try I would say. > > I'm not buying a macbook just to make a point. > >> - brcmf_pcie_buscore_{read,write}32() are not the main functions, they are >> the corner cases. They exist to satisfy chip.c which is a common module to >> support different bus types (SDIO and PCIE). Chip.c just identifies the >> cores on the chip and does some magic reset stuff. The main functions to >> access memory (during normal operation) are brcmf_pcie_read/write_{all >> variants} functions. They matter when it comes to performance, and I was >> under the impression you were familiar with the code and wanted to add >> window selection functionality to those functions, and that would have >> been bad. > > Did I mention them even once? > >> Chip.c is just init, we don't care about performance there. > > Then you invalidated your whole argument for not cleaning it up. > >> - I'm unfamiliar with sbwad, perhaps it has caused issues in the past. You >> wrote : " Can we standardise how this is supposed to work? Its ugly, and >> its going to cause bugs" and then you talk about a lot of changes in the >> PCIE code. > > ->swbad is used in the SDIO code to store the last value the window > register was programmed with, so as to avoid programming it twice. > > Im talking about making some attempt to unify the PCIE and SDIO bus > code, since they BOTH have the same constraint - an IO window that needs > to be moved about depending on the addresses being accessed. > > Whhat is really needed is for brcmf_pcie_select_core and a variant of it > for SDIO (and presumably USB, but I havent looked) to share common code. > > When you pull the code apart, its really not THAT dissimilar, but it > *looks* it and thats not a good thing. > > The major differences are: > > The PCIe code sets the window address in ALL the _{read,write}32 calls, > wheras the SDIO code does not. > The SDIO code does not have an analogue to brcmf_pcie_select_core() - > but it should, since it has similar restrictions. It works by good luck. > >> I don't see a need to cleanup just because we might change >> something in the future which could result in a bug because it was >> programmed perfectly pretty. > > -EPARSE > >> As far as I can see (and I can see a long way) > > Oh please. > >> there are not going to be a lot of changes in the pcie code in the >> near future. > > Maybe so - its a lot better than the SDIO code. > >> - I don't need to justify to you why the code is different. I wrote the >> code and I'll be the one adding new functionality. > > You realise that this is Linux, right? its public code, and worked on > publicly, by many people. You might be a maintainer of a driver, but > that does not make you "king of Linux". > >> You need to justify >> prettying up the code while I'm familiar with the code after working on it >> for the last 3 years. > > "Its illegible shite (the SDIO code certainly is) and it should never > have got into mainline" sounds like pretty damn good justification to me. > > If you've been working on this crap for 3 YEARS then *hang your damn > head in shame* - I've been working on it for about 5 DAYS now, and I've > found 2 complete breakages (one admittedly patched now), a possible > firmware bug, and undefined behaviour in the SDIO bus code. > > But its NOT a pissing contest. I've sent patches. It doesn't matter how > long you've been working on the code - if the patches make it better, > then take the damn patches. Or at least explain why you aren't going to. > >> No offence, > > Too late for that. > >> but "Im going to be one to get familiarized with your prettifying >> changes while you just hop on to the next driver..... > > You cheeky bastard. "hop onto the next driver". As if that means anything. > > Just because you're familiar with the stinking pile of crap doesn't mean > it should not be touched for fear of breaking it. > > You're the one ploughing ahead adding new features on top of a garbage > driver core. > > Stop. Listen. Fix it. > > Then add the new features. > > You could at the very least give some feedback on the 29 patches I sent > cleaning it up. > > For reference, I've noticed a couple of minor nits in my patchset ( one > spelling error in a commit message, one dangling variable, and some > minor shenannigans around f0 writes which needs a trivial re-work for > compliance with the linux mmc framework (I should use a QUIRK for the > func0 accesses - although the original driver code was worse and > actively worked around the quirk instead). I will re-spin and post them. > > In the mean time, I'd appreciate some review on the rest. Since you're > clearly full time on this driver, bloody well get on with it. > > -Ian > >> >> Regards, Hante >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Molton [mailto:ian@mnementh.co.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1:28 PM >> To: Hante Meuleman; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Arend Van Spriel; Franky Lin >> Subject: Re: brcmfmac bus level addressing issues. >> >> On 18/07/17 11:35, Hante Meuleman wrote: >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> I've really no idea what you mean. >> >> You should look at the code... >> >>> brcmf_pcie_select_core is redundant? >> >> Essentially yes - there may be a couple of corner cases where the IO >> accesses are not performed via brcmf_pcie_buscore_{read,write}32() - but >> other than that, brcmf_pcie_buscore_prep_addr() sets the IO window >> unconditionally on every access. >> >>> Care to try to boot a device without this function? >> >> I strongly suspect it would work. Perhaps try it? Give me a device and >> I'll try it. >> >>> Called all over the place? Hell no, it is default pointing to PCIE2 >>> and functions which need to map the window to another core will do so, >>> temporarily, but move it back to PCIE2, at least that is the idea, may >>> be you found a bug? >> >> brcmf_pcie_select_core() looks up the core structure from the core id. >> >> it then sets BRCMF_PCIE_BAR0_WINDOW according to the core base address. >> >> it actually goes to the length of reading it back and trying again if its >> not set, even, which is at least a little bit horrifying. >> >> ------------ >> >> brcmf_pcie_buscore_{read,write}32() both call >> brcmf_pcie_buscore_prep_addr() >> >> brcmf_pcie_buscore_prep_addr() *unconditionally* programs >> BRCMF_PCIE_BAR0_WINDOW on *every single* IO access. >> >> If you want inefficient - its right there. >> >> >> The SDIO version of the code is actually considerably more efficient on >> this point - it at least only programs the window register only when it >> changes, not on every single IO access. >> >>> We are >>> for sure not going to hide the selecting of the window in the >>> read/write routines, that would result in a giant amount of overhead. >> >> Actually it would result in *considerably* less overhead than the current >> code, that blindly sets the window on every access. >> >>> Currently PCIE >>> devices reach 1.5Gpbs, we need to go faster than that in the near >> future. >> >> I dont need a lesson on writing efficient code, thanks. >> >>> We don't want just change that to make it bit nicer..... Why do you >>> need to see the same in the SDIO and PCIE drivers? SDIO and PCIE >>> differ in many aspects. Sure some things can be improved in or the >>> other, but they sure don't need to look alike. >> >> I dont "need" to see the same in both drivers. Not where it isnt >> appropriate. >> >> but every part of the drivers that can share code without noticeably >> impacting performance *should* do so. You should be justifying to me why >> the code has to be different, not the other way around. Are you sreiously >> arguing that sharing common code is a bad idea? >> >>> It may be ugly, but thusfar it has not caused bugs >> >> Oh, I bet you it has... try reading the SDIO version (note the reliance on >> the dangling ->sbwad pointer) and tell me again that this hasnt caused >> bugs. >> >> Right now, the bulk of the driver code is sat on top of at least two bus >> drivers with differing IO models, and is working via good luck alone. >> >>> The concept in pcie bus part is simple. >> >> And differs completely from the SDIO part. >> >>> The main core to select is PCIE2 (once you have booted and established >>> initial communication with firmware) and every routine which needs to >>> access another core will change the window temporarily and set it back >>> once done. Please don't mess with this, it works, it is clear and it >>> is fast. >> >> If is anything but fast. changing the window involves traversiong the list >> of cores. Every. Single. Time. It doesnt *have* to - but thats what >> brcmf_chip_get_core() does, and brcmf_pcie_select_core() calls it. >> >