Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPI / CPPC: Make cppc acpi driver aware of pcc
 subspace ids
To: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@arm.com>,
        George Cherian <george.cherian@cavium.com>
References: <1490941442-11954-1-git-send-email-george.cherian@cavium.com>
 <1490941442-11954-3-git-send-email-george.cherian@cavium.com>
 <20170403173746.GA27057@arm.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@acpica.org, ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        lenb@kernel.org, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, robert.moore@intel.com,
        lv.zheng@intel.com, pprakash@codeaurora.org
From: George Cherian <gcherian@caviumnetworks.com>
Message-ID: <58E37AA8.40308@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 16:21:20 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170403173746.GA27057@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2017 10:51:36.3594 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0701MB1705
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 5459
Lines: 142


Hi Alexey,

On 04/03/2017 11:07 PM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> (adding Prashanth to c/c)
>
> Hi George,
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:24:02AM +0000, George Cherian wrote:
>> Based on Section 14.1 of ACPI specification, it is possible to have a
>> maximum of 256 PCC subspace ids. Add support of multiple PCC subspace id
>> instead of using a single global pcc_data structure.
>>
>> While at that fix the time_delta check in send_pcc_cmd() so that last_mpar_reset
>> and mpar_count is initialized properly. Also maintain a global total_mpar_count
>> which is a sum of per subspace id mpar value.
>
> Could you please provide clarification on why sum of total_mpar_count is
> required? Do you assume that there always will be only one single firmware CPU
> that handles PCC commands on another side?

Yes you are right the total_mpar_count  should be removed and should be 
handled per subspace id. Moreover the current logic of not sending the 
command to PCC and returning with -EIO is also flawed. It should 
actually have a retry mechanism instead of returning -EIO even without 
submitting the request to the channel.
>
> Theoretically different PCC channels can be connected to different platform CPUs
> on other end (imagine NUMA systems in case of CPPC) so it's not clear why transport
> layer of PCC should use that global count. Also, ACPI spec 6.1 (page 701) in
> in description of MPAR states "The maximum number of periodic requests that the subspace
> channel can support".
>
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: George Cherian <george.cherian@cavium.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>>   1 file changed, 105 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> index 3ca0729..7ba05ac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> @@ -77,12 +77,16 @@ struct cppc_pcc_data {
>>   	wait_queue_head_t pcc_write_wait_q;
>>   };
>>
>> -/* Structure to represent the single PCC channel */
>> -static struct cppc_pcc_data pcc_data = {
>> -	.pcc_subspace_idx = -1,
>> -	.platform_owns_pcc = true,
>> -};
>> +/* Array  to represent the PCC channel per subspace id */
>> +static struct cppc_pcc_data pcc_data[MAX_PCC_SUBSPACES];
>> +/*
>> + * It is quiet possible that multiple CPU's can share
>> + * same subspace ids. The cpu_pcc_subspace_idx maintains
>> + * the cpu to pcc subspace id map.
>> + */
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_pcc_subspace_idx);
>>
>> +static int total_mpar_count;
>>   /*
>>    * The cpc_desc structure contains the ACPI register details
>>    * as described in the per CPU _CPC tables. The details
>> @@ -93,7 +97,8 @@ static struct cppc_pcc_data pcc_data = {
>>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpc_desc *, cpc_desc_ptr);
>>
>>   /* pcc mapped address + header size + offset within PCC subspace */
>> -#define GET_PCC_VADDR(offs) (pcc_data.pcc_comm_addr + 0x8 + (offs))
>> +#define GET_PCC_VADDR(offs, pcc_ss_id) (pcc_data[pcc_ss_id].pcc_comm_addr + \
>> +						0x8 + (offs))
>>
>>   /* Check if a CPC regsiter is in PCC */
>>   #define CPC_IN_PCC(cpc) ((cpc)->type == ACPI_TYPE_BUFFER &&		\
>> @@ -183,13 +188,17 @@ static struct kobj_type cppc_ktype = {
>>   	.default_attrs = cppc_attrs,
>>   };
>>
>> -static int check_pcc_chan(bool chk_err_bit)
>> +static int check_pcc_chan(int cpunum, bool chk_err_bit)
>>   {
>>   	int ret = -EIO, status = 0;
>> -	struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory __iomem *generic_comm_base = pcc_data.pcc_comm_addr;
>> -	ktime_t next_deadline = ktime_add(ktime_get(), pcc_data.deadline);
>> -
>> -	if (!pcc_data.platform_owns_pcc)
>> +	int pcc_ss_id = per_cpu(cpu_pcc_subspace_idx, cpunum);
>> +	struct cppc_pcc_data *pcc_ss_data = &pcc_data[pcc_ss_id];
>> +	struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory __iomem *generic_comm_base =
>> +		pcc_ss_data->pcc_comm_addr;
>> +	ktime_t next_deadline = ktime_add(ktime_get(),
>> +					  pcc_ss_data->deadline);
>> +
>> +	if (!pcc_ss_data->platform_owns_pcc)
>>   		return 0;
>>
>>   	/* Retry in case the remote processor was too slow to catch up. */
>> @@ -214,7 +223,7 @@ static int check_pcc_chan(bool chk_err_bit)
>>   	}
>>
>>   	if (likely(!ret))
>> -		pcc_data.platform_owns_pcc = false;
>> +		pcc_ss_data->platform_owns_pcc = false;
>>   	else
>>   		pr_err("PCC check channel failed. Status=%x\n", status);
>>
>> @@ -225,11 +234,13 @@ static int check_pcc_chan(bool chk_err_bit)
>>    * This function transfers the ownership of the PCC to the platform
>>    * So it must be called while holding write_lock(pcc_lock)
>>    */
>> -static int send_pcc_cmd(u16 cmd)
>> +static int send_pcc_cmd(int cpunum, u16 cmd)
>
>
> I don't like the direction of where it's going.
>
> To send commands through PCC channel you don't need to know CPU number.
> Ideally, send_pcc_cmd() shouldn't care a lot about software entity that uses
> it (CPPC, RASF, MPST, etc) and passing some CPU number to this function you
> bind it to CPPC interfaces while it shouldn't depend on it.
> Maybe you can pass subspace it here instead.
Actually if you look inside send_pcc_cmd it does a mapping of cpu to 
subspace id.  To avoid confusion it is better to pass the subspace id to 
this function than the cpu number.
>
> BTW, is it possible to make separate mailbox PCC client and move it out from
> CPPC code?

Why do you think it is necessary? Currently CPPC driver itself is the 
client for mailbox/pcc driver.

>
>
> [...]
>
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey Klimov.
>
>