Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] scpi: Add alternative legacy structures, functions and macros

From: Sudeep Holla
Date: Mon Sep 19 2016 - 11:25:08 EST




On 07/09/16 16:34, Neil Armstrong wrote:
In order to support the legacy SCPI protocol variant, add back the structures
and macros that varies against the final specification.
Add indirection table for legacy commands.
Add bitmap field for channel selection
Add support for legacy in scpi_send_message.

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 218 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 211 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
index 9a87687..9ba1020 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c

[..]

@@ -336,6 +424,39 @@ static void scpi_handle_remote_msg(struct mbox_client *c, void *msg)
scpi_process_cmd(ch, cmd);
}

+static void legacy_scpi_process_cmd(struct scpi_chan *ch)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct scpi_xfer *t;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&ch->rx_lock, flags);
+ if (list_empty(&ch->rx_pending)) {
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ch->rx_lock, flags);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ t = list_first_entry(&ch->rx_pending, struct scpi_xfer, node);
+ list_del(&t->node);
+

This is a bad assumption that it will be always first. The legacy SCPI
did support multiple commands at a time and they can be reordered when
SCP responds to them. Except this it's almost same scpi_process_cmd. You
should be able to use it as is if you pass the command.

+ /* check if wait_for_completion is in progress or timed-out */
+ if (t && !completion_done(&t->done)) {
+ struct legacy_scpi_shared_mem *mem = ch->rx_payload;
+ unsigned int len = t->rx_len;
+
+ t->status = le32_to_cpu(mem->status);
+ memcpy_fromio(t->rx_buf, mem->payload, len);
+ complete(&t->done);
+ }
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ch->rx_lock, flags);
+}
+
+static void legacy_scpi_handle_remote_msg(struct mbox_client *c, void *_msg)
+{
+ struct scpi_chan *ch = container_of(c, struct scpi_chan, cl);
+
+ legacy_scpi_process_cmd(ch);

You will get the command in *_msg IIRC. So you can just pass that to
scpi_process_cmd. You can even reuse scpi_handle_remote_msg

diff --git i/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c w/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
index edf1a3327041..165f2fc3b627 100644
--- i/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
+++ w/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
@@ -419,7 +419,12 @@ static void scpi_handle_remote_msg(struct mbox_client *c, void *msg)
{
struct scpi_chan *ch = container_of(c, struct scpi_chan, cl);
struct scpi_shared_mem *mem = ch->rx_payload;
- u32 cmd = le32_to_cpu(mem->command);
+ u32 cmd;
+
+ if (ch->is_legacy)
+ cmd = *(u32 *)msg;
+ else
+ cmd = le32_to_cpu(mem->command);

scpi_process_cmd(ch, cmd);
}

+}
+
static void scpi_tx_prepare(struct mbox_client *c, void *msg)
{
unsigned long flags;
@@ -356,6 +477,21 @@ static void scpi_tx_prepare(struct mbox_client *c, void *msg)
mem->command = cpu_to_le32(t->cmd);
}

+static void legacy_scpi_tx_prepare(struct mbox_client *c, void *msg)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+ struct scpi_xfer *t = msg;
+ struct scpi_chan *ch = container_of(c, struct scpi_chan, cl);
+
+ if (t->tx_buf)
+ memcpy_toio(ch->tx_payload, t->tx_buf, t->tx_len);
+ if (t->rx_buf) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&ch->rx_lock, flags);
+ list_add_tail(&t->node, &ch->rx_pending);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ch->rx_lock, flags);
+ }
+}

Again here the only difference is token addition. I think we should
retain that as it's helpful in debugging and I don't think it will have
any issues. Worst case we can make it conditional but let's check if we
can retain it first.

@@ -386,15 +522,25 @@ static int scpi_send_message(u8 cmd, void *tx_buf, unsigned int tx_len,
struct scpi_xfer *msg;
struct scpi_chan *scpi_chan;

- chan = atomic_inc_return(&scpi_info->next_chan) % scpi_info->num_chans;
+ if (scpi_info->is_legacy)
+ chan = test_bit(cmd, scpi_info->cmd_priority) ? 1 : 0;
+ else
+ chan = atomic_inc_return(&scpi_info->next_chan) %
+ scpi_info->num_chans;
scpi_chan = scpi_info->channels + chan;

msg = get_scpi_xfer(scpi_chan);
if (!msg)
return -ENOMEM;

- msg->slot = BIT(SCPI_SLOT);
- msg->cmd = PACK_SCPI_CMD(cmd, tx_len);
+ if (scpi_info->is_legacy) {
+ mutex_lock(&scpi_chan->xfers_lock);

Why does legacy need a different locking scheme ?

[...]

@@ -635,6 +804,24 @@ static int scpi_sensor_get_value(u16 sensor, u64 *val)
return ret;
}

+static int legacy_scpi_sensor_get_value(u16 sensor, u64 *val)
+{
+ __le16 id = cpu_to_le16(sensor);
+ struct sensor_value buf;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = check_cmd(CMD_SENSOR_VALUE);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = scpi_send_message(scpi_info->scpi_cmds[CMD_SENSOR_VALUE],
+ &id, sizeof(id), &buf, sizeof(buf));
+ if (!ret)
+ *val = (u64)le32_to_cpu(buf.lo_val);
+

This is not needed as it's backward compatible as discussed before.
Any particular reason you retained it here ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep