Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ASoc: tas2563: DSP Firmware loading support

[Dan Murphy]

Mark

On 6/9/20 12:50 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 12:28:41PM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote:
>
> >   	.val_bits = 8,
> >   
> > -	.max_register = 5 * 128,
> > +	.max_register = 255 * 128,
> >   	.cache_type = REGCACHE_RBTREE,
> >   	.reg_defaults = tas2562_reg_defaults,
> >   	.num_reg_defaults = ARRAY_SIZE(tas2562_reg_defaults),
> Should some or all of the DSP memory be marked as volatile?  I guess if
> we only write program to it then on reload after power off it should be
> fine to just blast everything in again and ignore the fact that some
> will have changed, but it might be helpful for debugging to be able to
> read the live values back and do something more clever for restore.

Well the only values I see that change that regmap should care about are 
in first page of the register map.

After reverse engineering a binary I found that its contents modify page 
0 registers of the device.

Not a fan of this as it causes un-wanted changes that may have been setup.

> >   #define TAS2562_PAGE_CTRL      0x00
> > +#define TAS2562_BOOK_CTRL      0x7f
> *sigh*  Of course the two levels of paging register are not located
> anywhere near each other so we can't easily pretend they're one double
> width page address.  :/
Yes I agree
> > +static int tas25xx_process_fw_single(struct tas2562_data *tas2562,
> > +				     struct tas25xx_cmd_data *cmd_data,
> > +				     u8 *fw_out)
> > +{
> > +	int num_writes = cpu_to_be16(cmd_data->length);
> > +	int i;
> > +	int ret;
> > +	int offset = 4;
> > +	int reg_data, write_reg;
> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < num_writes; i++) {
> > +		/* Reset Page to 0 */
> > +		ret = regmap_write(tas2562->regmap, TAS2562_PAGE_CTRL, 0);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> Why?

Well the reason to set this back to page 0 is that is where the book 
register is.

So setting this back to page 0 set the Book register appropriately.

> > +
> > +		cmd_data->book = fw_out[offset];
> > +		cmd_data->page = fw_out[offset + 1];
> > +		cmd_data->offset = fw_out[offset + 2];
> > +		reg_data = fw_out[offset + 3];
> > +		offset += 4;
> > +
> > +		ret = regmap_write(tas2562->regmap, TAS2562_BOOK_CTRL,
> > +				   cmd_data->book);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> This manual paging doesn't fill me with with joy especially with regard
> to caching and doing the books behind the back of regmap.  I didn't spot
> anything disabling cache or anything in the code.  I think you should
> either bypass the cache while doing this or teach regmap about the
> books (which may require core updates, I can't remember if the range
> code copes with nested levels of paging - I remember thinking about it).

Yeah. After reading this and thinking about this for a couple days.  
This actually has contention issues with the ALSA controls.

There needs to also be some locks put into place.

I prefer to disable the cache.  Not sure how many other devices use 
Books and pages for register maps besides TI.

Adding that to regmap might be to specific to our devices.

> > +static ssize_t write_config_store(struct device *dev,
> > +				struct device_attribute *tas25xx_attr,
> > +				const char *buf, size_t size)
> > +{
> This looks like it could just be an enum (it looks like there's names we
> could use) or just a simple numbered control?  Same for all the other
> controls, they're just small integers so don't look hard to handle.  But
> perhaps I'm missing something?

No you are right.  The issue with using enums is that the binary is not 
parsed until after codec_probe and the device is registered.

So the controls would appear later which could be a race condition for 
the user space.

> > +	tas2562->fw_data->fw_hdr = devm_kzalloc(tas2562->dev, hdr_size,
> > +						GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!tas2562->fw_data->fw_hdr)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	memcpy(tas2562->fw_data->fw_hdr, &fw->data[0], hdr_size);
> Should validate that the firmware is actually at least hdr_size big, and
> similarly for all the other lengths we get from the header we should
> check that there's actually enough data in the file.  ATM we just
> blindly copy.

I will have to look into doing this.  I blindly copy this data because 
there is really not a viable and reliable way to check sizes against the 
structures.


> It'd also be good to double check that the number of configs and
> programs is within bounds.

This I can check once the data is copied.

Dan