Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox

From: [email-masked] (Alexey Klimov)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 18:34:26 +0100

Hi Andre,

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Andre Przywara <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver

As far as I can see, this driver also supports transmission via hvc.
However, almost everywhere here only smc instruction is mentioned.
Is it okay from your point of view?

> is implemented in firmware and can synchronously return data when it
> returns execution to the non-secure world again.
> An asynchronous receive path is not implemented.
> This allows the usage of a mailbox to trigger firmware actions on SoCs
> which either don't have a separate management processor or on which such
> a core is not available. A user of this mailbox could be the SCP
> interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  drivers/mailbox/Kconfig           |   8 ++
>  drivers/mailbox/Makefile          |   2 +
>  drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> index c5731e5..5664b7f 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> @@ -170,4 +170,12 @@ config BCM_FLEXRM_MBOX
>           Mailbox implementation of the Broadcom FlexRM ring manager,
>           which provides access to various offload engines on Broadcom
>           SoCs. Say Y here if you want to use the Broadcom FlexRM.
> +
> +config ARM_SMC_MBOX
> +       tristate "Generic ARM smc mailbox"
> +       depends on OF && HAVE_ARM_SMCCC
> +       help
> +         Generic mailbox driver which uses ARM smc calls to call into
> +         firmware for triggering mailboxes.
> +
>  endif
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> index d54e412..8ec6869 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> @@ -35,3 +35,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_BCM_FLEXRM_MBOX) += bcm-flexrm-mailbox.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_APCS_IPC)    += qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.o
> 
>  obj-$(CONFIG_TEGRA_HSP_MBOX)   += tegra-hsp.o
> +
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX)     += arm-smc-mailbox.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d7b61a7
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
> +/*
> + *  Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd.
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + *
> + * This device provides a mechanism for emulating a mailbox by using
> + * smc calls, allowing a "mailbox" consumer to sit in firmware running
> + * on the same core.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> +
> +#define ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC   BIT(0)
> +
> +struct arm_smc_chan_data {
> +       u32 function_id;
> +       u32 flags;
> +};
> +
> +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data)
> +{
> +       struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
> +       u32 function_id = chan_data->function_id;
> +       struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +       u32 msg = *(u32 *)data;
> +
> +       if (chan_data->flags & ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC)
> +               arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, msg, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +       else
> +               arm_smccc_smc(function_id, msg, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, &res);
> +
> +       mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)res.a0);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* This mailbox is synchronous, so we are always done. */
> +static bool arm_smc_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *link)
> +{
> +       return true;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mbox_chan_ops arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops = {
> +       .send_data      = arm_smc_send_data,
> +       .last_tx_done   = arm_smc_last_tx_done
> +};

How the usage of timer-based polling tx_done method is justified (since it
always returns 'true')?

At the first glance, will it be more efficient to use TXDONE_BY_ACK here?
For instance, a controller will say:

	mbox->txdone_poll = false;
	mbox->txdone_irq = false;

and a client will say:

	cl->tx_block = true;
	cl->knows_txdone = true,

and the client will tick tx machinery with its mbox_client_txdone() immediately
after sending of message (since 'This mailbox is synchronous'). Otherwise,
why framework and client should wait >=1 ms before sending next message?

> +static int arm_smc_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +       struct mbox_controller *mbox;
> +       struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data;
> +       const char *method;
> +       bool use_hvc = false;
> +       int ret, i;
> +
> +       ret = of_property_count_elems_of_size(dev->of_node, "arm,func-ids",
> +                                             sizeof(u32));
> +       if (ret < 0)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       if (!of_property_read_string(dev->of_node, "method", &method)) {
> +               if (!strcmp("hvc", method)) {
> +                       use_hvc = true;
> +               } else if (!strcmp("smc", method)) {
> +                       use_hvc = false;
> +               } else {
> +                       dev_warn(dev, "invalid \"method\" property: %s\n",
> +                                method);
> +
> +                       return -EINVAL;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!mbox)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       mbox->num_chans = ret;
> +       mbox->chans = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*mbox->chans),
> +                                  GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!mbox->chans)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       chan_data = devm_kcalloc(dev, mbox->num_chans, sizeof(*chan_data),
> +                                GFP_KERNEL);
> +       if (!chan_data)
> +               return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) {
> +               u32 function_id;
> +
> +               ret = of_property_read_u32_index(dev->of_node,
> +                                                "arm,func-ids", i,
> +                                                &function_id);
> +               if (ret)
> +                       return ret;
> +
> +               chan_data[i].function_id = function_id;
> +               if (use_hvc)
> +                       chan_data[i].flags |= ARM_SMC_MBOX_USE_HVC;
> +               mbox->chans[i].con_priv = &chan_data[i];
> +       }
> +
> +       mbox->txdone_poll = true;
> +       mbox->txdone_irq = false;
> +       mbox->txpoll_period = 1;
> +       mbox->ops = &arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops;
> +       mbox->dev = dev;
> +
> +       ret = mbox_controller_register(mbox);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mbox);
> +       dev_info(dev, "ARM SMC mailbox enabled with %d chan%s.\n",
> +                mbox->num_chans, mbox->num_chans == 1 ? "" : "s");

Out of curiosity, did you try to use more than one channel with this driver?

[..]

Best regards,
Alexey