Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:38:56 +0100
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "jassisinghbrar@gmail.com" <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        "sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/2] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
Message-ID: <20190917183856.2342beed@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1568626884-5189-3-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
References: <1568626884-5189-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
        <1568626884-5189-3-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com>
Organization: ARM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:44:41 +0000
Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:

Hi,

looks quite good now, some smaller comments below.
I think the only thing left is the "function ID passed by the client" topic.

Have you tried using this interface using hvc, for instance in KVM or Xen? For instance to provide access to a clock for a passed-through platform device?
Another use case that pops up from time to time is GPIO for guests. This sounds like a use case for using the register interface, also we could use the hvc return value.

> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> 
> This mailbox driver implements a mailbox which signals transmitted data
> via an ARM smc (secure monitor call) instruction. The mailbox receiver
> 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.
> 
> Modified from Andre Przywara's v2 patch
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/812999/
> 
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mailbox/Kconfig           |   7 ++
>  drivers/mailbox/Makefile          |   2 +
>  drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 176 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> index ab4eb750bbdd..7707ee26251a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Kconfig
> @@ -16,6 +16,13 @@ config ARM_MHU
>  	  The controller has 3 mailbox channels, the last of which can be
>  	  used in Secure mode only.
>  
> +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.
> +
>  config IMX_MBOX
>  	tristate "i.MX Mailbox"
>  	depends on ARCH_MXC || COMPILE_TEST
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> index c22fad6f696b..93918a84c91b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/Makefile
> @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX_TEST)	+= mailbox-test.o
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MHU)	+= arm_mhu.o
>  
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMC_MBOX)	+= arm-smc-mailbox.o
> +
>  obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_MBOX)	+= imx-mailbox.o
>  
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARMADA_37XX_RWTM_MBOX)	+= armada-37xx-rwtm-mailbox.o
> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..c84aef39c8d9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/arm-smc-mailbox.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2016,2017 ARM Ltd.
> + * Copyright 2019 NXP
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/mailbox_controller.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +
> +struct arm_smc_chan_data {
> +	unsigned int function_id;
> +};
> +
> +struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd {
> +	unsigned int function_id;
> +	union {
> +		unsigned int args_smccc32[6];
> +		unsigned long args_smccc64[6];

Shouldn't this be u32 and u64 here, as the data type has this explicit length in the SMCCC?

> +	};
> +};

If this is the data structure that this mailbox controller uses, I would expect this to be documented somewhere, or even exported.

And again, I don't like the idea of having the function ID in here.

> +
> +typedef unsigned long (smc_mbox_fn)(unsigned int, unsigned long,
> +				    unsigned long, unsigned long,
> +				    unsigned long, unsigned long,
> +				    unsigned long);
> +static smc_mbox_fn *invoke_smc_mbox_fn;
> +
> +static int arm_smc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *link, void *data)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smc_chan_data *chan_data = link->con_priv;
> +	struct arm_smccc_mbox_cmd *cmd = data;
> +	unsigned long ret;
> +	u32 function_id;
> +
> +	function_id = chan_data->function_id;
> +	if (!function_id)
> +		function_id = cmd->function_id;
> +
> +	if (function_id & BIT(30)) {

	if (ARM_SMCCC_IS_64(function_id)) {

> +		ret = invoke_smc_mbox_fn(function_id, cmd->args_smccc64[0],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc64[1],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc64[2],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc64[3],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc64[4],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc64[5]);
> +	} else {
> +		ret = invoke_smc_mbox_fn(function_id, cmd->args_smccc32[0],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc32[1],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc32[2],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc32[3],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc32[4],
> +					 cmd->args_smccc32[5]);
> +	}
> +
> +	mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)ret);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long __invoke_fn_hvc(unsigned int function_id,
> +				     unsigned long arg0, unsigned long arg1,
> +				     unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
> +				     unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +
> +	arm_smccc_hvc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
> +		      arg5, 0, &res);
> +	return res.a0;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long __invoke_fn_smc(unsigned int function_id,
> +				     unsigned long arg0, unsigned long arg1,
> +				     unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
> +				     unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
> +{
> +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +
> +	arm_smccc_smc(function_id, arg0, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4,
> +		      arg5, 0, &res);
> +	return res.a0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mbox_chan_ops arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops = {
> +	.send_data	= arm_smc_send_data,
> +};
> +
> +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;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 function_id = 0;
> +
> +	if (of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "arm,smc-mbox"))
> +		invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_smc;
> +	else
> +		invoke_smc_mbox_fn = __invoke_fn_hvc;
> +
> +	mbox = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!mbox)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	mbox->num_chans = 1;
> +	mbox->chans = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*mbox->chans), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!mbox->chans)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	chan_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*chan_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!chan_data)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "arm,func-id", &function_id);
> +	chan_data->function_id = function_id;
> +
> +	mbox->chans->con_priv = chan_data;
> +
> +	mbox->txdone_poll = false;
> +	mbox->txdone_irq = false;

Don't we need to provide something to confirm reception to the client? In our case we can set this as soon as the smc/hvc returns.

Cheers,
Andre.

> +	mbox->ops = &arm_smc_mbox_chan_ops;
> +	mbox->dev = dev;
> +
> +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, mbox);
> +
> +	ret = devm_mbox_controller_register(dev, mbox);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	dev_info(dev, "ARM SMC mailbox enabled.\n");
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int arm_smc_mbox_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct mbox_controller *mbox = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> +	mbox_controller_unregister(mbox);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id arm_smc_mbox_of_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible = "arm,smc-mbox", },
> +	{ .compatible = "arm,hvc-mbox", },
> +	{},
> +};
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smc_mbox_of_match);
> +
> +static struct platform_driver arm_smc_mbox_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name = "arm-smc-mbox",
> +		.of_match_table = arm_smc_mbox_of_match,
> +	},
> +	.probe		= arm_smc_mbox_probe,
> +	.remove		= arm_smc_mbox_remove,
> +};
> +module_platform_driver(arm_smc_mbox_driver);
> +
> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>");
> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Generic ARM smc mailbox driver");
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");