Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
the registers.
Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
---
drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
static bool disable_msipolling;
module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
+static bool bypass;
MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
"Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
@@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
+ /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
+ if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
+ desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
+ desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
+ desc->msg.data = msg->data;
+ }
+
writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
}
+static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
+{
+ struct msi_desc *desc;
+ struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
+
+ for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
+ switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
+ case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
+ case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
+ case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
+ arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
+ break;
+ default:
+ continue;
+
+ }
+ }
+}
+
static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
{
struct msi_desc *desc;
@@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
}
-static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
+static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
{
int irq, ret;
- arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
+ if (!resume_mode)
+ arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
+ else {
+ /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
+ arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
+ return;
+ }
/* Request interrupt lines */
irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
@@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
}
}
-static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
+static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
{
int ret, irq;
u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
@@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
if (ret < 0)
dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
} else
- arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
+ arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
@@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
return ret;
}
-static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
+static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
{
int ret;
u32 reg, enables;
@@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
}
}
- ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
+ ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
if (ret) {
dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
return ret;
@@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
}
+static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+ /*
+ * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
+ * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
+ */
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+ arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
int irq, ret;
@@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
resource_size_t ioaddr;
struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
- bool bypass;
smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!smmu)
@@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
/* Reset the device */
- ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);
+ ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
+static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
+ .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
+ .resume = arm_smmu_resume,
+};
+
static void arm_smmu_driver_unregister(struct platform_driver *drv)
{
arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize();
@@ -3895,6 +3950,7 @@ static struct platform_driver arm_smmu_driver = {
.name = "arm-smmu-v3",
.of_match_table = arm_smmu_of_match,
.suppress_bind_attrs = true,
+ .pm = &arm_smmu_pm_ops,
},
.probe = arm_smmu_device_probe,
.remove = arm_smmu_device_remove,
--
2.17.1
[ +Marc for MSI bits ]
On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
>
> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
> the registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>
> static bool disable_msipolling;
> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
> +static bool bypass;
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>
> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>
> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
> + }
My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe shouldn't
be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area :/
> +
> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
> }
>
> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> + struct msi_desc *desc;
> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> +
> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
> + break;
> + default:
> + continue;
> +
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> struct msi_desc *desc;
> @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
> }
>
> -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> {
> int irq, ret;
>
> - arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> + if (!resume_mode)
> + arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> + else {
> + /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
> + arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
> + return;
What about wired IRQs?
> + }
>
> /* Request interrupt lines */
> irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
> @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> }
> }
>
> -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> {
> int ret, irq;
> u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
> @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> if (ret < 0)
> dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
> } else
> - arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
> + arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>
> if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
> irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
> @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the function. Have
you even compiled this?
> {
> int ret;
> u32 reg, enables;
> @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> }
> }
>
> - ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
> + ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
> return ret;
> @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
> return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
> }
>
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + /*
> + * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
> + * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
> + */
Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external
clock-gating?
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> int irq, ret;
> @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> resource_size_t ioaddr;
> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> - bool bypass;
Once again...
> smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!smmu)
> @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
>
> /* Reset the device */
> - ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);
...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its
own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.
> + ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
> + .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
> + .resume = arm_smmu_resume,
Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused
annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced
unconditionally.
Robin.
> +};
> +
> static void arm_smmu_driver_unregister(struct platform_driver *drv)
> {
> arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize();
> @@ -3895,6 +3950,7 @@ static struct platform_driver arm_smmu_driver = {
> .name = "arm-smmu-v3",
> .of_match_table = arm_smmu_of_match,
> .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> + .pm = &arm_smmu_pm_ops,
> },
> .probe = arm_smmu_device_probe,
> .remove = arm_smmu_device_remove,
>
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:42:14 +0100,
Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ +Marc for MSI bits ]
>
> On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> > Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
> >
> > When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
> > cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
> > of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
> > the registers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
> > static bool disable_msipolling;
> > module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
> > +static bool bypass;
> > MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
> > "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
> > @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct
> > msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
> > doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
> > doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
> > + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
> > + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
> > + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
> > + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
> > + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
> > + }
>
> My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe
> shouldn't be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area
> :/
Certainly not. If you rely on the message being stored into the
descriptors, then implement this in the core code, like we do for PCI.
>
> > +
> > writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
> > writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
> > writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
> > }
> > +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > +{
> > + struct msi_desc *desc;
> > + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> > +
> > + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
> > + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
> > + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
> > + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
> > + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
> > + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
Consider using get_cached_msi_msg() instead of using the internals of
the descriptor.
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > {
> > struct msi_desc *desc;
> > @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
> > }
> > -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device
> > *smmu)
> > +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> > {
> > int irq, ret;
> > - arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> > + if (!resume_mode)
> > + arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> > + else {
> > + /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
> > + arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
> > + return;
>
> What about wired IRQs?
Yeah. I assume the SMMU needs to be told which event gets signalled
using MSIs or IRQs? Or is that implied by the MSI being configured or
not (I used to know the answer to that, but I have long paged it out).
>
> > + }
> > /* Request interrupt lines */
> > irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
> > @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > }
> > }
> > -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> > {
> > int ret, irq;
> > u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
> > @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > if (ret < 0)
> > dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
> > } else
> > - arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
> > + arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
> > if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
> > irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
> > @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
> > bool bypass)
> > +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>
> Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the
> function. Have you even compiled this?
The author of the patch has conveniently made it a global value (see
line 3 of the patch). I'm sure it doesn't break anything... :-(
>
> > {
> > int ret;
> > u32 reg, enables;
> > @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> > }
> > }
> > - ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
> > + ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
> > return ret;
> > @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
> > return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
> > }
> > +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
> > + * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
> > + */
>
> Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external
> clock-gating?
+1. This seems awfully implementation/integration specific. I'd be
more in favour of a controlled teardown.
>
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > +
> > + arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > int irq, ret;
> > @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > resource_size_t ioaddr;
> > struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > - bool bypass;
>
> Once again...
>
> > smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!smmu)
> > @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
> > /* Reset the device */
> > - ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);
>
> ...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its
> own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.
>
> > + ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id
> > arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
> > };
> > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
> > +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
> > + .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
> > + .resume = arm_smmu_resume,
>
> Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused
> annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced
> unconditionally.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On 2021-07-21 14:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:42:14 +0100,
> Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [ +Marc for MSI bits ]
>>
>> On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
>>> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
>>>
>>> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
>>> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
>>> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
>>> the registers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>>> static bool disable_msipolling;
>>> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
>>> +static bool bypass;
>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
>>> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>>> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct
>>> msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
>>> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
>>> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>>> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
>>> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
>>> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
>>> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
>>> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
>>> + }
>>
>> My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe
>> shouldn't be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area
>> :/
>
> Certainly not. If you rely on the message being stored into the
> descriptors, then implement this in the core code, like we do for PCI.
Ah, so it would be an acceptable compromise to *read* desc->msg (and
thus avoid having to store our own copy of the message) if the core was
guaranteed to cache it? That's good to know, thanks.
>>> +
>>> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
>>> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
>>> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
>>> }
>>> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> +{
>>> + struct msi_desc *desc;
>>> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
>>> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
>>> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
>>> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
>
> Consider using get_cached_msi_msg() instead of using the internals of
> the descriptor.
Oh, there's even a proper API for it, marvellous! I hadn't managed to
dig that far myself :)
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> {
>>> struct msi_desc *desc;
>>> @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
>>> }
>>> -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device
>>> *smmu)
>>> +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>> {
>>> int irq, ret;
>>> - arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
>>> + if (!resume_mode)
>>> + arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
>>> + else {
>>> + /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
>>> + arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
>>> + return;
>>
>> What about wired IRQs?
>
> Yeah. I assume the SMMU needs to be told which event gets signalled
> using MSIs or IRQs? Or is that implied by the MSI being configured or
> not (I used to know the answer to that, but I have long paged it out).
My mistake there - I misread the rather convoluted existing flow to
think that bailing here would fail to enable wired IRQs, but of course
the signalling decision is based on whether the MSI address is non-zero,
and the enables in ARM_SMMU_IRQ_CTRL still apply either way.
Given that, I think this is that point at which to refactor this whole
part so that logically requesting and physically programming the
interrupts are split into distinct stages, which can then be called
seperately as appropriate. Personally I have a particular dislike of
this general anti-pattern:
int do_a_thing(bool but_only_do_part_of_it)
>>> + }
>>> /* Request interrupt lines */
>>> irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
>>> @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> }
>>> }
>>> -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>> {
>>> int ret, irq;
>>> u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
>>> @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> if (ret < 0)
>>> dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
>>> } else
>>> - arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
>>> + arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>>> if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
>>> irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
>>> @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>> -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>> bool bypass)
>>> +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>
>> Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the
>> function. Have you even compiled this?
>
> The author of the patch has conveniently made it a global value (see
> line 3 of the patch). I'm sure it doesn't break anything... :-(
Oh blimey, I hadn't even turned on my "things that make no flippin'
sense" radar to notice that, thanks for the correction. Indeed that's
pretty busted for SMMU instances probing concurrently.
As with interrupts, reset probably wants a bit of refactoring to
separate out the probe-time concerns of cleaning up any left-over
configuration from firmware/kdump/whatever, and the act of putting the
hardware into the operational state we want. For instance, if it happens
that state is *not* lost on suspend, subsequently warning about
CR0_SMMUEN being enabled on resume would be bad.
>>> {
>>> int ret;
>>> u32 reg, enables;
>>> @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
>>> }
>>> }
>>> - ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
>>> + ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>>> if (ret) {
>>> dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
>>> return ret;
>>> @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
>>> return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
>>> }
>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
>>> + * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
>>> + */
>>
>> Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external
>> clock-gating?
>
> +1. This seems awfully implementation/integration specific. I'd be
> more in favour of a controlled teardown.
>
>>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>> +
>>> + arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> {
>>> int irq, ret;
>>> @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> resource_size_t ioaddr;
>>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>> - bool bypass;
>>
>> Once again...
>>
>>> smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> if (!smmu)
>>> @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
>>> /* Reset the device */
>>> - ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);
>>
>> ...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its
>> own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.
As above, apologies for the oversight there. It's not as badly wrong as
I thought, but it's still not right.
Thanks,
Robin.
>>
>>> + ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;
>>> @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id
>>> arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>>> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
>>> + .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
>>> + .resume = arm_smmu_resume,
>>
>> Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused
>> annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced
>> unconditionally.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:59:47 +0100,
Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2021-07-21 14:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:42:14 +0100,
> > Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> [ +Marc for MSI bits ]
> >>
> >> On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> >>> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
> >>>
> >>> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
> >>> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
> >>> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
> >>> the registers.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
> >>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> >>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
> >>> static bool disable_msipolling;
> >>> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
> >>> +static bool bypass;
> >>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
> >>> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
> >>> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct
> >>> msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
> >>> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
> >>> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
> >>> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
> >>> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
> >>> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
> >>> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
> >>> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
> >>> + }
> >>
> >> My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe
> >> shouldn't be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area
> >> :/
> >
> > Certainly not. If you rely on the message being stored into the
> > descriptors, then implement this in the core code, like we do for PCI.
>
> Ah, so it would be an acceptable compromise to *read* desc->msg (and
> thus avoid having to store our own copy of the message) if the core
> was guaranteed to cache it? That's good to know, thanks.
Yeah, vfio, a couple of other weird drivers and (*surprise!*) ia64 are
using this kind of trick. I don't see a reason not to implement that
for platform-MSI (although level signalling may be interesting...), or
even to move it into the core MSI code.
>
> >>> +
> >>> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
> >>> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
> >>> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
> >>> }
> >>> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct msi_desc *desc;
> >>> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> >>> +
> >>> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
> >>> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
> >>> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
> >>> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
> >>> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
> >>> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
> >
> > Consider using get_cached_msi_msg() instead of using the internals of
> > the descriptor.
>
> Oh, there's even a proper API for it, marvellous! I hadn't managed to
> dig that far myself :)
It is a bit odd in the sense that it takes a copy of the message
instead of returning a pointer, but at least this solves lifetime
issues.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On 2021/7/21 23:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:59:47 +0100,
> Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-07-21 14:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:42:14 +0100,
>>> Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ +Marc for MSI bits ]
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
>>>>> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
>>>>> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
>>>>> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
>>>>> the registers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>>> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>>>>> static bool disable_msipolling;
>>>>> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
>>>>> +static bool bypass;
>>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
>>>>> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>>>>> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct
>>>>> msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
>>>>> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
>>>>> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>>>>> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
>>>>> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
>>>>> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
>>>>> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
>>>>> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe
>>>> shouldn't be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area
>>>> :/
>>>
>>> Certainly not. If you rely on the message being stored into the
>>> descriptors, then implement this in the core code, like we do for PCI.
>>
>> Ah, so it would be an acceptable compromise to *read* desc->msg (and
>> thus avoid having to store our own copy of the message) if the core
>> was guaranteed to cache it? That's good to know, thanks.
>
> Yeah, vfio, a couple of other weird drivers and (*surprise!*) ia64 are
> using this kind of trick. I don't see a reason not to implement that
> for platform-MSI (although level signalling may be interesting...), or
> even to move it into the core MSI code.
Agree. If msg is saved to desc->msg in MSI core, the code here will not need.
During the initialization of the MSI interrupt of the SMMU, the desc->msg
is never used. So I save msg to desc->msg for resume use.
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
>>>>> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
>>>>> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
>>>>> }
>>>>> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct msi_desc *desc;
>>>>> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
>>>>> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
>>>>> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>>>> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
>>>>> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>>>> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
>>>
>>> Consider using get_cached_msi_msg() instead of using the internals of
>>> the descriptor.
>>
>> Oh, there's even a proper API for it, marvellous! I hadn't managed to
>> dig that far myself :)
>
> It is a bit odd in the sense that it takes a copy of the message
> instead of returning a pointer, but at least this solves lifetime
> issues.
The code of arm_smmu_write_msi_msg() is multiplexed to restore the register. Therefore,
the parameter must be supplemented. Generally, desc is sufficient as an input parameter..
:)
Thanks,
Bixuan Cui
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
On 2021/7/21 21:59, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:42:14 +0100,
>> Robin Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ +Marc for MSI bits ]
>>>
>>> On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
>>>> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
>>>>
>>>> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
>>>> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
>>>> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
>>>> the registers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <[email protected]>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <[email protected]>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <[email protected]>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>>>> static bool disable_msipolling;
>>>> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
>>>> +static bool bypass;
>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
>>>> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>>>> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct
>>>> msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
>>>> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
>>>> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>>>> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
>>>> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
>>>> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
>>>> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
>>>> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe
>>> shouldn't be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area
>>> :/
>>
>> Certainly not. If you rely on the message being stored into the
>> descriptors, then implement this in the core code, like we do for PCI.
>
> Ah, so it would be an acceptable compromise to *read* desc->msg (and thus avoid having to store our own copy of the message) if the core was guaranteed to cache it? That's good to know, thanks.
>
>>>> +
>>>> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
>>>> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
>>>> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
>>>> }
>>>> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct msi_desc *desc;
>>>> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
>>>> +
>>>> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
>>>> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
>>>> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>>> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
>>>> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
>>>> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
>>
>> Consider using get_cached_msi_msg() instead of using the internals of
>> the descriptor.
>
> Oh, there's even a proper API for it, marvellous! I hadn't managed to dig that far myself :)
Thanks for your suggestion, I'll use get_cached_msi_msg() instead.
>
>>>> + break;
>>>> + default:
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> {
>>>> struct msi_desc *desc;
>>>> @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
>>>> }
>>>> -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device
>>>> *smmu)
>>>> +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>>> {
>>>> int irq, ret;
>>>> - arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
>>>> + if (!resume_mode)
>>>> + arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
>>>> + else {
>>>> + /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
>>>> + arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
>>>> + return;
>>>
>>> What about wired IRQs?
>>
>> Yeah. I assume the SMMU needs to be told which event gets signalled
>> using MSIs or IRQs? Or is that implied by the MSI being configured or
>> not (I used to know the answer to that, but I have long paged it out).
>
> My mistake there - I misread the rather convoluted existing flow to think that bailing here would fail to enable wired IRQs, but of course the signalling decision is based on whether the MSI address is non-zero, and the enables in ARM_SMMU_IRQ_CTRL still apply either way>
> Given that, I think this is that point at which to refactor this whole part so that logically requesting and physically programming the interrupts are split into distinct stages, which can then be called seperately as appropriate. Personally I have a particular dislike of this general anti-patten
>
> int do_a_thing(bool but_only_do_part_of_it)
I have verified this patch on the board in arm64, and the MSI interrupt can work properly after resume.
The important work is to restore ARM_SMMU_EVTQ_IRQ_CFGn/ARM_SMMU_GERROR_IRQ_CFGn/ARM_SMMU_PRIQ_IRQ_CFG0 register after the resume.
When adding the suspend/resume, I try to change the original code as little as possible.
Thanks
Bixuan Cui
>
>>>> + }
>>>> /* Request interrupt lines */
>>>> irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
>>>> @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>>> {
>>>> int ret, irq;
>>>> u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
>>>> @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>> dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
>>>> } else
>>>> - arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
>>>> + arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>>>> if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
>>>> irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
>>>> @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>>> bool bypass)
>>>> +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
>>>
>>> Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the
>>> function. Have you even compiled this?
>>
>> The author of the patch has conveniently made it a global value (see
>> line 3 of the patch). I'm sure it doesn't break anything... :-(
>
> Oh blimey, I hadn't even turned on my "things that make no flippin' sense" radar to notice that, thanks for the correction. Indeed that's pretty busted for SMMU instances probing concurrently.
>
> As with interrupts, reset probably wants a bit of refactoring to separate out the probe-time concerns of cleaning up any left-over configuration from firmware/kdump/whatever, and the act of putting the hardware into the operational state we want. For instance, if it happens that state is *not* lost on suspend, subsequently warning about CR0_SMMUEN being enabled on resume would be bad.
>
>>>> {
>>>> int ret;
>>>> u32 reg, enables;
>>>> @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> - ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
>>>> + ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>>>> if (ret) {
>>>> dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
>>>> return ret;
>>>> @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
>>>> return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
>>>> }
>>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
>>>> + * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external
>>> clock-gating?
>>
>> +1. This seems awfully implementation/integration specific. I'd be
>> more in favour of a controlled teardown.
Indeed, The current code applies to the scenario where the SMMU is directly powered off.
I'm not sure what other implementation/integration are. :(
>>
>>>
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> {
>>>> int irq, ret;
>>>> @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> resource_size_t ioaddr;
>>>> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
>>>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>> - bool bypass;
>>>
>>> Once again...
>>>
>>>> smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> if (!smmu)
>>>> @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
>>>> /* Reset the device */
>>>> - ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);
>>>
>>> ...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its
>>> own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.
>
> As above, apologies for the oversight there. It's not as badly wrong as I thought, but it's still not right.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>>>
>>>> + ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>>>> @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id
>>>> arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>>>> };
>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>>>> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
>>>> + .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
>>>> + .resume = arm_smmu_resume,
>>>
>>> Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused
>>> annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced
>>> unconditionally.
Thank you for the advice here.
Thanks,
Bixuan Cui
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> M.
>>
> .