[PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

[PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

[Sibi Sankar]

Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
re-enable them on remoteproc device start.

Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
@@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
 	struct qcom_smem_state *state;
 	unsigned stop_bit;
 
+	unsigned int handover_interrupt;
+	unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
+	unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
+
 	struct clk *active_clks[8];
 	struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
 	int active_clk_count;
@@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
 	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
 	struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
 	bool need_mem_protection;
+	bool unvoted_flag;
 	int mpss_perm;
 	int mba_perm;
 	int version;
@@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 	int xfermemop_ret;
 	int ret;
 
+	qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
 	ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
 				    qproc->proxy_reg_count);
 	if (ret) {
@@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 	if (ret)
 		goto reclaim_mpss;
 
+	enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+	enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+	enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
+
 	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
 					  msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
 	if (ret == 0) {
+		disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+		disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+		disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
 		dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
 		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
 		goto reclaim_mpss;
@@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 			"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
 	qproc->running = true;
 
-	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
-			 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
-	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
-			       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
-
 	return 0;
 
 reclaim_mpss:
@@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
 	WARN_ON(ret);
 
 	reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
+	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
+		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
+				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
+		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
+				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
+	}
+	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
+
 	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
 			 qproc->active_clk_count);
 	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
@@ -959,7 +977,7 @@ static irqreturn_t q6v5_fatal_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }
 
-static irqreturn_t q6v5_handover_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
+static irqreturn_t q6v5_ready_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
 {
 	struct q6v5 *qproc = dev;
 
@@ -967,6 +985,21 @@ static irqreturn_t q6v5_handover_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
 }
 
+static irqreturn_t q6v5_handover_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
+{
+	struct q6v5 *qproc = dev;
+
+	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
+		qproc->unvoted_flag = true;
+		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
+				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
+		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
+				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
+	}
+
+	return IRQ_HANDLED;
+}
+
 static irqreturn_t q6v5_stop_ack_interrupt(int irq, void *dev)
 {
 	struct q6v5 *qproc = dev;
@@ -1048,7 +1081,8 @@ static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
 static int q6v5_request_irq(struct q6v5 *qproc,
 			     struct platform_device *pdev,
 			     const char *name,
-			     irq_handler_t thread_fn)
+			     irq_handler_t thread_fn,
+			     unsigned int *irq_num)
 {
 	int ret;
 
@@ -1058,6 +1092,9 @@ static int q6v5_request_irq(struct q6v5 *qproc,
 		return ret;
 	}
 
+	if (irq_num)
+		*irq_num = ret;
+
 	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, ret,
 					NULL, thread_fn,
 					IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_ONESHOT,
@@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	qproc->version = desc->version;
 	qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
-	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
+	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
+			       &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto free_rproc;
+	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+
+	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "fatal", q6v5_fatal_interrupt,
+			       &qproc->fatal_interrupt);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto free_rproc;
+	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
 
-	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "fatal", q6v5_fatal_interrupt);
+	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "ready", q6v5_ready_interrupt,
+			       NULL);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto free_rproc;
 
-	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "handover", q6v5_handover_interrupt);
+	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "handover", q6v5_handover_interrupt,
+			       &qproc->handover_interrupt);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto free_rproc;
+	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
 
-	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "stop-ack", q6v5_stop_ack_interrupt);
+	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "stop-ack", q6v5_stop_ack_interrupt,
+			       NULL);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		goto free_rproc;
 
-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:

> Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
> handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
> and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
> wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
> re-enable them on remoteproc device start.

Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
>  	struct qcom_smem_state *state;
>  	unsigned stop_bit;
>  
> +	unsigned int handover_interrupt;
> +	unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
> +	unsigned int fatal_interrupt;

Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".

> +
>  	struct clk *active_clks[8];
>  	struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
>  	int active_clk_count;
> @@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
>  	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
>  	struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
>  	bool need_mem_protection;
> +	bool unvoted_flag;
>  	int mpss_perm;
>  	int mba_perm;
>  	int version;
> @@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	int xfermemop_ret;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
>  	ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>  				    qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>  	if (ret) {
> @@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto reclaim_mpss;
>  
> +	enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> +	enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> +	enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
> +
>  	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
>  					  msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
>  	if (ret == 0) {
> +		disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> +		disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> +		disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>  		dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
>  		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>  		goto reclaim_mpss;
> @@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  			"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
>  	qproc->running = true;
>  
> -	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
> -			 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
> -	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
> -			       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
> -
>  	return 0;
>  
>  reclaim_mpss:
> @@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	WARN_ON(ret);
>  
>  	reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
> +	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> +	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
> +		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
> +				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
> +		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
> +				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
> +	}

Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
places?

> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> +	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);

Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
resource disable.

> +
>  	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
>  			 qproc->active_clk_count);
>  	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
[..]
> @@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	qproc->version = desc->version;
>  	qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
> -	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
> +	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
> +			       &qproc->wdog_interrupt);

I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
invalid irq number.

> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		goto free_rproc;
> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);

I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?

> +

Regards,
Bjorn

Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

[Sibi S]

Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for the review. Will make all the suggested changes.

On 05/19/2018 01:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> 
>> Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
>> handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
>> and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
>> wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
>> re-enable them on remoteproc device start.
> 
> Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
> Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?
> 

will split it into separate commits

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
>>   	struct qcom_smem_state *state;
>>   	unsigned stop_bit;
>>   
>> +	unsigned int handover_interrupt;
>> +	unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
>> +	unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
> 
> Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".
> 

ok

>> +
>>   	struct clk *active_clks[8];
>>   	struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
>>   	int active_clk_count;
>> @@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
>>   	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
>>   	struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
>>   	bool need_mem_protection;
>> +	bool unvoted_flag;
>>   	int mpss_perm;
>>   	int mba_perm;
>>   	int version;
>> @@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	int xfermemop_ret;
>>   	int ret;
>>   
>> +	qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
>>   	ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>>   				    qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>>   	if (ret) {
>> @@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		goto reclaim_mpss;
>>   
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>> +
>>   	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
>>   					  msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
>>   	if (ret == 0) {
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>>   		dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
>>   		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>>   		goto reclaim_mpss;
>> @@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   			"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
>>   	qproc->running = true;
>>   
>> -	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> -			 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> -	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> -			       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> -
>>   	return 0;
>>   
>>   reclaim_mpss:
>> @@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	WARN_ON(ret);
>>   
>>   	reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
>> +		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> +				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> +		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> +				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> +	}
> 
> Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
> places?

Will create two separate functions for enable/disable

> 
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
> 
> Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
> together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
> resource disable.

Nope they can be grouped together.

> 
>> +
>>   	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
>>   			 qproc->active_clk_count);
>>   	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
> [..]
>> @@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	qproc->version = desc->version;
>>   	qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
>> -	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
>> +	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
>> +			       &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> 
> I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
> first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
> invalid irq number.

I'll inline the function.

> 
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto free_rproc;
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> 
> I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?
> 

yes just to keep things symmetric.

>> +
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project