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

[narmstrong@baylibre.com (Neil Armstrong)]

On 09/19/2016 05:24 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> 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@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>>  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.

I would be happy this was the case...

> 
>> +    /* 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

But Amlogic SCP firmware does not answer the command but only the first bit...
so we cannot queue commands because we cannot find back the queued command
from the replied MHU STAT value.

> 
> 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.

Yes token addition works.

> 
>> @@ -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 ?

Since we cannot queue, locking seems a really good idea...

> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -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 ?
> 

Sudeep,

I merged the commands as asked but Amlogic's SCP firmware only replies the value 1 in the MHU STAT registers.

This implies that :
 - We cannot distinguish what command ended in scpi_handle_remote_msg
 - We cannot find the last rx command in rx_pending list
 - We cannot read rx data length from the replied command
 - We cannot push multiple commands
 - We also need to wait for TX commands completion
 - We need locking in scpi_send_message around mbox_send_message and completion

I have an highly tweaked version with simplified path for legacy but with merged handle_remote_msg, tx_prepare and send_message functions
I will post shortly.

Neil