Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: mach-shmobile: Parse DT to get ARCH timer memory region

[Oleksandr <olekstysh@gmail.com>]

On 13.05.19 12:19, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,

Hi, Julien, Geert


>
> On 5/10/19 5:22 PM, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
>> From: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
>>
>> Don't use hardcoded address, retrieve it from device-tree instead.
>>
>> And besides, this patch fixes the memory error when running
>> on top of Xen hypervisor:
>>
>> (XEN) traps.c:1999:d0v0 HSR=0x93830007 pc=0xc0b097f8 gva=0xf0805000
>>        gpa=0x000000e6080000
>>
>> Which shows that VCPU0 in Dom0 is trying to access an address in memory
>> it is not allowed to access (0x000000e6080000).
>> Put simply, Xen doesn't know that it is a device's register memory
>> since it wasn't described in a host device tree (which Xen parses)
>> and as the result this memory region wasn't assigned to Dom0 at
>> domain creation time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> This patch is meant to get feedback from the community before
>> proceeding further. If we decide to go this direction, all Gen2
>> device-trees should be updated (add memory region) before
>> this patch going in.
>>
>> e.g. r8a7790.dtsi:
>>
>> ...
>> timer {
>>     compatible = "arm,armv7-timer";
>>     interrupts-extended = <&gic GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | 
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>>                   <&gic GIC_PPI 14 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | 
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>>                   <&gic GIC_PPI 11 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | 
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>>                   <&gic GIC_PPI 10 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | 
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>;
>> +     reg = <0 0xe6080000 0 0x1000>;
>
> This looks incorrect, the "arm,armv7-timer" bindings doesn't offer you 
> the possibility to specify an MMIO region. This makes sense because it 
> is meant to describe the Arch timer that is only access via 
> co-processor registers.
>
> Looking at the code, I think the MMIO region corresponds to the 
> coresight (based on the register name). So you may want to describe 
> the coresight in the Device-Tree.
>
> Also, AFAICT, the code is configuring and turning on the timer if it 
> has not been done yet. If you are here running on Xen, then you have 
> probably done something wrong. Indeed, it means Xen would not be able 
> to use the timer until Dom0 has booted. But, shouldn't newer U-boot do 
> it for you?

Let me elaborate a bit more on this...

Indeed, my PSCI patch series for U-Boot includes a patch [1] for 
configuring that "counter module". So, if PSCI is available 
(psci_smp_available() == true), then most likely we are running on 
PSCI-enabled
U-Boot which, we assume, has already taken care of configuring timer (as 
well as resetting CNTVOFF). So, when running on Xen, the timer was 
configured beforehand in U-Boot, and Xen is able to use it from the very 
beginning, these is no need to wait for Dom0 to configure it.

(XEN) Generic Timer IRQ: phys=30 hyp=26 virt=27 Freq: 10000 KHz

So, the code in brackets won't be called when using PSCI/running Xen, 
since the timer is already both enabled and configured:

if ((ioread32(base + CNTCR) & 1) == 0 ||
         ioread32(base + CNTFID0) != freq) {
         /* Update registers with correct frequency */
         iowrite32(freq, base + CNTFID0);
         asm volatile("mcr p15, 0, %0, c14, c0, 0" : : "r" (freq));

         /* make sure arch timer is started by setting bit 0 of CNTCR */
         iowrite32(1, base + CNTCR);
}

But, the problem here is the first read access from timer register (when 
we check whether the timer requires enabling) results in hypervisor trap:

(XEN) traps.c:1999:d0v0 HSR=0x93830007 pc=0xc0b097f8 gva=0xf0805000 
gpa=0x000000e6080000

So, if the DT bindings for the counter module is not an option (if I 
correctly understood a discussion pointed by Geert in another letter), 
we should probably prevent all timer code here from being executed if 
PSCI is in use.
What I mean is to return to [2], but with the modification to use 
psci_smp_available() helper as an indicator of PSCI usage.

Julien, Geert, what do you think?


[1] https://marc.info/?l=u-boot&m=154895714510154&w=2

[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/17/810


>
> Cheers,
>
-- 
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko