Re: [PATCH v10 06/11] remoteproc: mediatek: Probe multi-core SCP

From: TingHan Shen (沈廷翰)
Date: Tue May 02 2023 - 04:58:01 EST

Next message: Prathu Baronia: "[PATCH] kthread: fix spelling typo and grammar in comments"
Previous message: Heiko Stübner: "Re: [PATCH 8/8] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add rk3588 OTP node"
In reply to: Mathieu Poirier: "Re: [PATCH v10 06/11] remoteproc: mediatek: Probe multi-core SCP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 2023-05-01 at 16:31 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until you have verified the sender or the content.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 05:12:06PM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote:
> > The difference of single-core SCP and multi-core SCP device tree is
> > the presence of child device nodes described SCP cores. The SCP
> > driver populates the platform device and checks the child nodes
> > to identify whether it's a single-core SCP or a multi-core SCP.
> >
> > Add the remoteproc instances for single-core SCP and multi-core SCP to
> > the new added SCP cluster list. When the SCP driver is removed, it
> > cleanup resources by walking through the cluster list.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 3 +
> > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 188 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > index c0905aec3b4b..b73b60c22ea1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h
> > @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ struct mtk_scp {
> > size_t dram_size;
> >
> > struct rproc_subdev *rpmsg_subdev;
> > +
> > + struct list_head elem;
> > + struct list_head *cluster;
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > index 5e4982f4d5dc..0b052b0acf2e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct mtk_scp_of_cluster {
> > void __iomem *l1tcm_base;
> > size_t l1tcm_size;
> > phys_addr_t l1tcm_phys;
> > + struct list_head mtk_scp_cluster;
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -862,21 +863,31 @@ static void scp_remove_rpmsg_subdev(struct mtk_scp *scp)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static int scp_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +static int scp_rproc_init(struct platform_device *cluster_pdev,
> > + struct platform_device *core_pdev,
> > + const struct mtk_scp_of_data *of_data)
> > {
> > - struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > - struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > - struct mtk_scp_of_cluster *of_cluster = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + struct platform_device *pdev;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > + struct mtk_scp_of_cluster *of_cluster = platform_get_drvdata(cluster_pdev);
> > struct mtk_scp *scp;
> > struct rproc *rproc;
> > struct resource *res;
> > const char *fw_name = "scp.img";
> > int ret, i;
> >
> > + if (core_pdev)
> > + pdev = core_pdev;
> > + else
> > + pdev = cluster_pdev;
>
> After following my comment from the previous patch, there won't be a need to do
> this.
>
> > +
> > + dev = &pdev->dev;
> > ret = rproc_of_parse_firmware(dev, 0, &fw_name);
> > if (ret < 0 && ret != -EINVAL)
> > return ret;
> >
> > + np = dev->of_node;
> > rproc = devm_rproc_alloc(dev, np->name, &scp_ops, fw_name, sizeof(*scp));
> > if (!rproc)
> > return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "unable to allocate remoteproc\n");
> > @@ -884,7 +895,7 @@ static int scp_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > scp = rproc->priv;
> > scp->rproc = rproc;
> > scp->dev = dev;
> > - scp->data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > + scp->data = of_data;
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, scp);
> >
> > scp->reg_base = of_cluster->reg_base;
> > @@ -934,10 +945,6 @@ static int scp_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > goto remove_subdev;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> > - if (ret)
> > - goto remove_subdev;
> > -
> > return 0;
> >
> > remove_subdev:
> > @@ -952,6 +959,121 @@ static int scp_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static void scp_rproc_free(struct mtk_scp *scp)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + scp_remove_rpmsg_subdev(scp);
> > + scp_ipi_unregister(scp, SCP_IPI_INIT);
> > + scp_unmap_memory_region(scp);
> > + for (i = 0; i < SCP_IPI_MAX; i++)
> > + mutex_destroy(&scp->ipi_desc[i].lock);
> > + mutex_destroy(&scp->send_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int scp_is_single_core(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(dev);
> > + struct device_node *child;
> > +
> > + child = of_get_next_available_child(np, NULL);
> > + if (!child)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "No child node\n");
> > +
> > + of_node_put(child);
> > + return of_node_name_eq(child, "cros-ec-rpmsg");
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int scp_cluster_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct device_node *np = dev_of_node(dev);
> > + struct platform_device *cpdev;
> > + struct device_node *child;
> > + struct mtk_scp_of_cluster *of_cluster = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + const struct mtk_scp_of_data **cluster_of_data;
> > + struct list_head *cluster = &of_cluster->mtk_scp_cluster;
> > + struct mtk_scp *scp, *temp;
> > + int core_id = 0;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = scp_is_single_core(pdev);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "single-core scp\n");
> > +
> > + /* When using the SCP node phandle on exported SCP APIs, the drvdata
> > + * is expected to be the mtk_scp object, and as a result, it is intended
> > + * to be overwritten for single-core SCP usage.
> > + */
> > + ret = scp_rproc_init(pdev, NULL, of_device_get_match_data(dev));
> > + if (ret)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to initialize single-core scp\n");
> > +
> > + scp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + list_add_tail(&scp->elem, cluster);
> > + scp->cluster = cluster;
> > + } else {
> > + dev_dbg(dev, "multi-core scp\n");
> > +
> > + cluster_of_data = (const struct mtk_scp_of_data **)of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > +
> > + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > + if (!cluster_of_data[core_id]) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + dev_err(dev, "Not support core %d\n", core_id);
> > + of_node_put(child);
> > + goto init_fail;
> > + }
> > +
> > + cpdev = of_find_device_by_node(child);
> > + if (!cpdev) {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + dev_err(dev, "Not found platform device for core %d\n", core_id);
> > + of_node_put(child);
> > + goto init_fail;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = scp_rproc_init(pdev, cpdev, cluster_of_data[core_id]);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "Failed to initialize core %d rproc\n", core_id);
> > + put_device(&cpdev->dev);
> > + of_node_put(child);
> > + goto init_fail;
> > + }
> > + scp = platform_get_drvdata(cpdev);
> > + list_add_tail(&scp->elem, cluster);
> > + scp->cluster = cluster;
> > + put_device(&cpdev->dev);
> > +
> > + core_id++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(scp, temp, cluster, elem) {
> > + ret = rproc_add(scp->rproc);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto add_fail;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +add_fail:
> > + list_for_each_entry_continue(scp, cluster, elem) {
> > + rproc_del(scp->rproc);
> > + }
> > +init_fail:
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(scp, temp, cluster, elem) {
> > + list_del(&scp->elem);
> > + scp_rproc_free(scp);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int scp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > @@ -983,23 +1105,44 @@ static int scp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > of_cluster->l1tcm_phys = res->start;
> > }
> >
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&of_cluster->mtk_scp_cluster);
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, of_cluster);
> >
> > - return scp_rproc_init(pdev);
> > + ret = devm_of_platform_populate(dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to populate platform devices\n");
> > +
> > + ret = scp_cluster_init(pdev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to initialize scp cluster\n");
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int scp_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > - struct mtk_scp *scp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > - int i;
> > + struct mtk_scp *scp, *temp;
> > + struct mtk_scp_of_cluster *of_cluster;
> > + struct list_head *cluster;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > - rproc_del(scp->rproc);
> > - scp_remove_rpmsg_subdev(scp);
> > - scp_ipi_unregister(scp, SCP_IPI_INIT);
> > - scp_unmap_memory_region(scp);
> > - for (i = 0; i < SCP_IPI_MAX; i++)
> > - mutex_destroy(&scp->ipi_desc[i].lock);
> > - mutex_destroy(&scp->send_lock);
> > + ret = scp_is_single_core(pdev);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ret) {
> > + scp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + cluster = scp->cluster;
> > + } else {
> > + of_cluster = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + cluster = &of_cluster->mtk_scp_cluster;
> > + }
>
> If single and multi core systems were presented the same way, i.e with a cluster
> and a list of SCPs, you wouldn't have to do this. I will stop here for this
> revision.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathieu

I've been hesitant as to whether I can present the single and multi core systems
in the same way since version 1 of this series.

I was mad aware that the upstream kernel driver must retain compatibility with
the current device trees when introducing a new device tree format.

If it's acceptable, I'll adjust all the single-core SCP dts file and dt-bindings
conform to this format in the next version.

Best regards,
TingHan
>
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(scp, temp, cluster, elem) {
> > + list_del(&scp->elem);
> > + rproc_del(scp->rproc);
> > + scp_rproc_free(scp);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1078,12 +1221,19 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data_c1 = {
> > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8195_CORE1_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
> > };
> >
> > +static const struct mtk_scp_of_data *mt8195_of_data_cores[] = {
> > + &mt8195_of_data,
> > + &mt8195_of_data_c1,
> > + NULL
> > +};
> > +
> > static const struct of_device_id mtk_scp_of_match[] = {
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-scp", .data = &mt8183_of_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8186-scp", .data = &mt8186_of_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8188-scp", .data = &mt8188_of_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8192-scp", .data = &mt8192_of_data },
> > { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp", .data = &mt8195_of_data },
> > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8195-scp-dual", .data = &mt8195_of_data_cores },
> > {},
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mtk_scp_of_match);
> > --
> > 2.18.0
> >

Next message: Prathu Baronia: "[PATCH] kthread: fix spelling typo and grammar in comments"
Previous message: Heiko Stübner: "Re: [PATCH 8/8] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add rk3588 OTP node"
In reply to: Mathieu Poirier: "Re: [PATCH v10 06/11] remoteproc: mediatek: Probe multi-core SCP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]