Subject: [PATCH 7/8] mailbox: f_mhu: add driver for Fujitsu MHU controller

From: [email-masked] (Sudeep Holla)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:37:01 +0100

Hi Mollie,

On 13/07/14 07:32, Mollie Wu wrote:
> Add driver for the proprietary Mailbox controller (f_mhu) in MB86S7x.

And it looks like this is not Fujitsu proprietary MHU, it's exactly same IP
on JUNO(ARM64 development platform from ARM [1]). I was not sure it's 
standard
IP used on other SoCs too, I too wrote similar driver :(.

Can you please confirm this by reading Peripheral ID(PID: 0xFD0, 0xFE0 -
0xFEC) and Component ID(COMPID: 0xFF0 - 0xFFC). Are they

PID  - 0x04 0x98 0xB0 0x1B 0x00
COMPID - 0x0D 0xF0 0x05 0xB1

If so we have do s/f_mhu/arm_mhu/g :)

> It has three channels - LowPri-NonSecure, HighPri-NonSecure and Secure.
> The MB86S7x communicates over the HighPri-NonSecure channel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Tetsuya Takinishi <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Mollie Wu <[email-masked]>
> ---
>   drivers/mailbox/Kconfig  |   7 ++
>   drivers/mailbox/Makefile |   2 +
>   drivers/mailbox/f_mhu.c  | 227 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   3 files changed, 236 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/f_mhu.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> index c8b5c13..681aac2 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> @@ -6,6 +6,13 @@ menuconfig MAILBOX
>   	  signals. Say Y if your platform supports hardware mailboxes.
>
>   if MAILBOX
> +
> +config MBOX_F_MHU
> +	bool

On Juno, there's nothing that prevents me from compiling this as module.

> +	depends on ARCH_MB86S7X

Definitely not a requirement

> +	help
> +	  Say Y here if you want to use the F_MHU IPCM support.
> +

Also it needs some description.

>   config PL320_MBOX
>   	bool "ARM PL320 Mailbox"
>   	depends on ARM_AMBA
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> index 2fa343a..3707e93 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
>
>   obj-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX)		+= mailbox.o
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_MBOX_F_MHU)	+= f_mhu.o
> +
>   obj-$(CONFIG_PL320_MBOX)	+= pl320-ipc.o
>
>   obj-$(CONFIG_OMAP_MBOX)		+= omap-mailbox.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/f_mhu.c b/drivers/mailbox/f_mhu.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..cf5d3cd
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/f_mhu.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2013-2014 Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd.
> + *
> + * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> + * the Free Software Foundation, version 2 of the License.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +
> +#define INTR_STAT_OFS	0x0
> +#define INTR_SET_OFS	0x8
> +#define INTR_CLR_OFS	0x10
> +
> +#define MHU_SCFG	0x400
> +

Remove this.(secure access only register)

> +struct mhu_link {
> +	unsigned irq;
> +	spinlock_t lock; /* channel regs */
> +	void __iomem *tx_reg;
> +	void __iomem *rx_reg;
> +};
> +
> +struct f_mhu {
> +	void __iomem *base;
> +	struct clk *clk;
> +	struct mhu_link mlink[3];
> +	struct mbox_chan chan[3];
> +	struct mbox_controller mbox;
> +};
> +
> +static irqreturn_t mhu_rx_interrupt(int irq, void *p)
> +{
> +	struct mbox_chan *chan = (struct mbox_chan *)p;
> +	struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;

You don't need explicit cast from void pointers

> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);

Please remove all these debug prints.

> +	/* See NOTE_RX_DONE */
> +	val = readl_relaxed(mlink->rx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
> +	mbox_chan_received_data(chan, (void *)val);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * It is agreed with the remote firmware that the receiver
> +	 * will clear the STAT register indicating it is ready to
> +	 * receive next data - NOTE_RX_DONE
> +	 */

This note could be added as how this mailbox works in general and
it's not just Rx right ? Even Tx done is based on this logic.
Basically the logic is valid on both directions.

> +	writel_relaxed(val, mlink->rx_reg + INTR_CLR_OFS);
> +
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +
> +static bool mhu_last_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mlink->lock, flags);

Why do we need this extra locks here ? mailbox core maintains
per channel lock and uses it for at-least send_data IIRC. And this
function is just reading status do we really need the lock ?

I must be missing something here else  IMO we can get rid of this
extra locks in here.

> +	/* See NOTE_RX_DONE */
> +	val = readl_relaxed(mlink->tx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mlink->lock, flags);
> +
> +	return (val == 0);
> +}
> +
> +static int mhu_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> +	if (!mhu_last_tx_done(chan)) {
> +		pr_err("%s:%d Shouldn't have seen the day!\n",
> +		       __func__, __LINE__);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mlink->lock, flags);
> +	writel_relaxed((u32)data, mlink->tx_reg + INTR_SET_OFS);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mlink->lock, flags);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int mhu_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 val;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mlink->lock, flags);
> +	val = readl_relaxed(mlink->tx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
> +	writel_relaxed(val, mlink->tx_reg + INTR_CLR_OFS);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mlink->lock, flags);
> +
> +	ret = request_irq(mlink->irq, mhu_rx_interrupt,
> +			  IRQF_SHARED, "mhu_link", chan);

Just a thought: Can this be threaded_irq instead ?
Can move request_irq to probe instead esp. if threaded_irq ?
That provides some flexibility to client's rx_callback.

> +	if (unlikely(ret)) {
> +		pr_err("Unable to aquire IRQ\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void mhu_shutdown(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> +{
> +	struct mhu_link *mlink = (struct mhu_link *)chan->con_priv;
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
> +	free_irq(mlink->irq, chan);
> +}
> +
> +static struct mbox_chan_ops mhu_ops = {
> +	.send_data = mhu_send_data,
> +	.startup = mhu_startup,
> +	.shutdown = mhu_shutdown,
> +	.last_tx_done = mhu_last_tx_done,
> +};
> +
> +static int f_mhu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	int i, err;
> +	struct f_mhu *mhu;
> +	struct resource *res;
> +	int mhu_reg[3] = {0x0, 0x20, 0x200};

Probably this gets simplified when you remove secure channel access ?

> +
> +	/* Allocate memory for device */
> +	mhu = kzalloc(sizeof(*mhu), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!mhu) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to allocate memory.\n");
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	mhu->clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, "clk");
> +	if (unlikely(IS_ERR(mhu->clk))) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to init clock\n");

Don't bail out if there's no clock specified in DT. Clock might not
be a hard requirement.

> +		kfree(mhu);
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +	clk_prepare_enable(mhu->clk);
> +
> +	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> +	mhu->base = ioremap(res->start, resource_size(res));
> +	if (!mhu->base) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "ioremap failed.\n");
> +		kfree(mhu);
> +		return -EBUSY;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Let UnTrustedOS's access violations don't bother us */
> +	writel_relaxed(0, mhu->base + MHU_SCFG);
> +

Please don't do this. It can't work in non-secure mode. The firmware running
with secure access needs to configure this appropriately.

I might be missing to see, is there a binding document for this mhu ?

> +	for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> +		mhu->chan[i].con_priv = &mhu->mlink[i];
> +		spin_lock_init(&mhu->mlink[i].lock);
> +		res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, i);
> +		mhu->mlink[i].irq = res->start;
> +		mhu->mlink[i].rx_reg = mhu->base + mhu_reg[i];
> +		mhu->mlink[i].tx_reg = mhu->mlink[i].rx_reg + 0x100;
> +	}
> +
> +	mhu->mbox.dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	mhu->mbox.chans = &mhu->chan[0];
> +	mhu->mbox.num_chans = 3;

Change this to 2, we shouldn't expose secular channel here as Linux can't
access that anyway.

> +	mhu->mbox.ops = &mhu_ops;
> +	mhu->mbox.txdone_irq = false;
> +	mhu->mbox.txdone_poll = true;
> +	mhu->mbox.txpoll_period = 10;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mhu);
> +
> +	err = mbox_controller_register(&mhu->mbox);
> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register mailboxes %d\n", err);
> +		iounmap(mhu->base);
> +		kfree(mhu);
> +	} else {
> +		dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Fujitsu MHU Mailbox registered\n");
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +

Also to be module you need add remove.

> +static const struct of_device_id f_mhu_dt_ids[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "fujitsu,mhu" },
> +	{ /* sentinel */ }
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, f_mhu_dt_ids);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver f_mhu_driver = {
> +	.driver		= {
> +		.name	= "f_mhu",
> +		.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +		.of_match_table = f_mhu_dt_ids,
> +	},
> +	.probe		= f_mhu_probe,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init f_mhu_init(void)
> +{
> +	return platform_driver_register(&f_mhu_driver);
> +}
> +module_init(f_mhu_init);

This can be module_platform_driver instead.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] 
http://www.arm.com/products/tools/development-boards/versatile-express/juno-arm-development-platform.php