Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:51:29 +0200
From:   Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
To:     Jeffrey Hugo <quic_jhugo@quicinc.com>
Cc:     Jeffrey Hugo <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@linaro.org>,
        Sergey Ryazanov <ryazanov.s.a@gmail.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@aleksander.es>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/4] net: wwan: Add Qualcomm BAM-DMUX WWAN
 network driver
Message-ID: <YPmF8bzevuabO2K9@gerhold.net>
References: <20210719145317.79692-1-stephan@gerhold.net>
 <CAOCk7NonuOKWrpr-MwdjAwF1F4jviEMf=c04vVBxQ-OmfY2b-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <YPXC7PDCUopdCdTV@gerhold.net>
 <e37868ee-2bd0-3b50-eb95-8eb2bf32d956@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e37868ee-2bd0-3b50-eb95-8eb2bf32d956@quicinc.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 05:13:32PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> On 7/19/2021 12:23 PM, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 09:43:27AM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:01 AM Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > The BAM Data Multiplexer provides access to the network data channels
> > > > of modems integrated into many older Qualcomm SoCs, e.g. Qualcomm MSM8916
> > > > or MSM8974. This series adds a driver that allows using it.
> > > > 
> > > > For more information about BAM-DMUX, see PATCH 4/4.
> > > > 
> > > > Shortly said, BAM-DMUX is built using a simple protocol layer on top of
> > > > a DMA engine (Qualcomm BAM DMA). For BAM-DMUX, the BAM DMA engine runs in
> > > > a quite strange mode that I call "remote power collapse", where the
> > > > modem/remote side is responsible for powering on the BAM when needed but we
> > > > are responsible to initialize it. The BAM is power-collapsed when unneeded
> > > > by coordinating power control via bidirectional interrupts from the
> > > > BAM-DMUX driver.
> > > 
> > > The hardware is physically located on the modem, and tied to the modem
> > > regulators, etc.  The modem has the ultimate "off" switch.  However,
> > > due to the BAM architecture (which is complicated), configuration uses
> > > cooperation on both ends.
> > > 
> > 
> > What I find strange is that it wasn't done similarly to e.g. Slimbus
> > which has a fairly similar setup. (I used that driver as inspiration for
> > how to use the mainline qcom_bam driver instead of the "SPS" from
> > downstream.)
> > 
> > Slimbus uses qcom,controlled-remotely together with the LPASS
> > remoteproc, so it looks like there LPASS does both power-collapse
> > and initialization of the BAM. Whereas here the modem does the
> > power-collapse but we're supposed to do the initialization.
> 
> I suspect I don't have a satisfactory answer for you.  The teams that did
> slimbus were not the teams involved in the bam_dmux, and the two didn't talk
> to each-other.  The bam_dmux side wasn't aware of the slimbus situation, at
> the time.  I don't know if the slimbus folks knew about bam_dmux.  If you
> have two silos working independently, its unlikely they will create exactly
> the same solution.
> 

Fair enough :)

> > 
> > It's somewhat unrelated to this initial patch set since I'm not using
> > QMAP at the moment, but I'm quite confused about the "MTU negotiation
> > feature" that you added support for in [1]. (I *think* that is you,
> > right?) :)
> 
> Yes.  Do I owe you for some brain damage?  :)
> 

A bit to be absolutely honest. :D
But I was able to ignore this feature so far so it was not much of
a problem. ;)

> > 
> > The part that I somewhat understand is the "signal" sent in the "OPEN"
> > command from the modem. It tells us the maximum buffer size the modem
> > is willing to accept for TX packets ("ul_mtu" in that commit).
> > 
> > Similarly, if we send "OPEN" to the modem we make the modem aware
> > of our maximum RX buffer size plus the number of RX buffers.
> > (create_open_signal() function).
> > 
> > The part that is confusing me is the way the "dynamic MTU" is
> > enabled/disabled based on the "signal" in "DATA" commands as well.
> > (process_dynamic_mtu() function). When would that happen? The code
> > suggests that the modem might just suddenly announce that the large
> > MTU should be used from now on. But the "buffer_size" is only changed
> > for newly queued RX buffers so I'm not even sure how the modem knows
> > that it can now send more data at once.
> > 
> > Any chance you could clarify how this should work exactly?
> 
> So, I think some of this might make more sense after my response to question
> #2.
> 

Indeed, I was worried that you wouldn't be able to answer the second
one, otherwise I would probably have asked it first. I'll reorder the
mail because it's clearer:

> > And a second question if you don't mind: What kind of hardware block
> > am I actually talking to here? I say "modem" above but I just know about
> > the BAM and the DMUX protocol layer. I have also seen assertion failures
> > of the modem DSP firmware if I implement something incorrectly.
> > 
> > Is the DMUX protocol just some firmware concept or actually something
> > understood by some hardware block? I've also often seen mentions of some
> > "A2" hardware block but I have no idea what that actually is. What's
> > even worse, in a really old kernel A2/BAM-DMUX also appears as part of
> > the IPA driver [2], and I thought IPA is the new thing after BAM-DMUX...
> 
> A2 predates IPA.  IPA is essentially an evolution of A2.
> 
> Sit down son, let me tell you the history of the world  :)
> 
> A long time ago, there was only a single processor that did both the "modem"
> and the "apps".  We generally would call these the 6K days as that was the
> number of the chips (6XXX).  Then it was decided that the roles of Apps and
> Modem should be separated into two different cores. The modem, handling more
> "real time" things, and apps, being more "general purpose".  This started
> with the 7K series.
> 
> However, this created a problem as data from a data call may need to be
> consumed by the modem, or the apps, and it wouldn't be clear until the
> packet headers were inspected, where the packet needed to be routed to.
> Sometimes this was handled on apps, sometimes on modem.  Usually via a fully
> featured IP stack.
> 
> With LTE, software couldn't really keep up, and so a hardware engine to
> parse the fields and route the package based on programmed filters was
> implemented.  This is the "Algorithm Accelerator", aka AA, aka A2.
> 
> The A2 first appeared on the 9600 chip, which was originally intended for
> Gobi- those dongles you could plug into your laptop to give it a data
> connection on the go when there was no wifi.  It was then coupled with both
> 7x30 and 8660 in what we would call "fusion" to create the first LTE capable
> phones (HTC thunderbolt is the product I recall) until an integrated
> solution could come along.
> 
> That integrated solution was 8960.
> 
> Back to the fusion solution for a second, the 9600 was connected to the
> 7x30/8660 via SDIO.  Prior to this, the data call control and data path was
> all in chip via SMD.  Each rmnet instance had its own SMD channel, so
> essentially its own physical pipe.  With SDIO and 9600, there were not
> enough lanes, so we invented SDIO_CMUX and SDIO_DMUX - the Control and Data
> multiplexers over SDIO.
> 
> With 8960, everything was integrated again, so we could run the control path
> over SMD and didn't need a mux.  However, the A2 moved from the 9600 modem
> to the 8960 integrated modem, and now we had a direct connection to its BAM.
> Again, the BAM had a limited number of physical pipes, so we needed a data
> multiplexer again.  Thus SDIO_DMUX evolved into BAM_DMUX.
> 
> The A2 is a hardware block with an attached BAM, that "hangs off" the modem.
> There is a software component that also runs on the modem, but in general is
> limited to configuration.  Processing of data is expected to be all in
> hardware.  As I think I mentioned, the A2 is a hardware engine that routes
> IP packets based on programmed filters.
> 
> BAM instances (as part of the smart peripheral subsystem or SPS) can either
> be out in the system, or attached to a peripheral.  The A2 BAM is attached
> to the A2 peripheral.  BAM instances can run in one of 3 modes - BAM-to-BAM,
> BAM-to-System, or System-to-System.  BAM-to-BAM is two BAM instances talking
> to eachother.  If the USB controller has a BAM, and the A2 has a BAM, those
> two BAMS could talk directly to copy data between the A2 and USB hardware
> blocks without software interaction (after some configuration).  "System"
> means system memory, or DDR. Bam-to-System is the mode the A2 BAM runs in
> where it takes data to/from DDR and gives/takes that data with the A2.
> System-to-System would be used by a BAM instance not associated with any
> peripheral to transfer data say from Apps DDR to Modem DDR.
> 
> The A2 can get data from the RF interface, and determine if that needs to go
> to some modem consumer, the apps processor, or on some chips to the wifi
> processor.  All in hardware, much faster than software for multiple reasons,
> but mainly because multiple filters can be evaluated in parallel, each
> filter looking at multiple fields in parallel.  In a nutshell, the IPA is a
> revised A2 that is not associated with any processor (like the modem), which
> allows it to route data better (think wifi and audio usecases).
> 
> Hope that all helps.  I'm "around" for more questions.
> 

Wow, I can't thank you enough for all the detailed explanations!
I've seen many small hints of this in various places but I could never
really understand how they all relate to each other.
This is much clearer now. :)

> I don't know how much of this translates to modern platforms.  I don't
> really work on MSMs anymore, but I can convey what I recall and how things
> were "back then"
> 
> So, essentially the change you are looking at is the bam_dmux portion of an
> overall feature for improving the performance of what was known as "tethered
> rmnet".
> 
> Per my understanding (which the documentation of this feature reinforces),
> teathered rmnet was chiefly a test feature.  Your "data" (websites, email,
> etc) could be consumed by the device itself, or exported off, if you
> teathered your phone to a laptop so that the laptop could use the phone's
> data connection.  There ends up being 3 implementations for this.
> 
> Consuming the data on the phone would route it to the IP stack via the rmnet
> driver.
> 
> Consuming the data on an external device could take one of 2 routes.
> 
> Android would use the "native" routing of the Linux IP stack to essentially
> NAT the laptop.  The data would go to the rmnet driver, to the IP stack, and
> the IP stack would route it to USB.
> 
> The other route is that the data could be routed directly to USB.  This is
> "teathered rmnet".  In the case of bam_dmux platforms, the USB stack is a
> client of bam_dmux.
> 
> Teathered rmnet was never an end-user usecase.
>

I'm pretty sure it's actively used now on typical USB modems based on
MDM9607. As far as I know that one has BAM-DMUX and "forwards" it via
USB (without NAT).

> It was essentially a validation feature for both internal testing, and
> also qualifying the device with the carriers.  The carriers knew that
> Android teathering involved NAT based routing on the phone, and wanted
> to figure out if the phone could meet the raw performance specs of the
> RF technology (LTE Category 4 in this case) in a tethered scenario,
> without the routing.
> 
> For tethered rmnet, USB (at the time) was having issues consistently meeting
> those data rates (50mbps UL, 100mbps DL concurrently, if I recall
> correctly).  So, the decided solution was to implement QMAP aggregation.
> 
> A QMAP "call" over tethered rmnet would be negotiated between the app on the
> PC, and "dataservices" or "DS" on the modem.  One of the initial steps of
> that negotitation causes DS to tell A2 software that QMAP over tethered
> rmnet is being activated.  That would trigger A2 to activate the
> process_dynamic_mtu() code path.  Now bam_dmux would allocate future RX
> buffers of the increased size which could handle the aggregated packets.  I
> think the part that is confusing you is, what about the already queued
> buffers that are of the old size?  Well, essentially those get consumed by
> the rest of the QMAP call negotiation, so by the time actual aggregated data
> is going to be sent from Modem to bam_dmux, the pool has been consumed and
> refilled.
> 
> When the tethered rmnet connection is "brought down", DS notifies A2, and A2
> stops requesting the larger buffers.
> 

Hmm, is this "DS" on the modem something special I don't know about?
It sounds like the part of the modem that I talk to via QMI to establish
new connections. However, since QMI does not go through BAM-DMUX
(RPMSG/SMD or QRTR instead) there should be only very few packets sent
via BAM-DMUX during negotation of QMAP.

To be sure I just tried QMAP with my BAM-DMUX driver again. It's been
quite some time since I tried it and it turns out this causes even more
"brain damage" than I could even remember. :D For reference:

 1. First I need to set the modem to QMAP mode, this works e.g. with
    qmicli -pd /dev/wwan0qmi0 \
    --wda-set-data-format="link-layer-protocol=raw-ip,ul-protocol=qmap,dl-protocol=qmap,dl-datagram-max-size=4096"

    However, it's important that my BAM-DMUX driver OPENs the channel
    before doing this (together with announcing support for the "dynamic
    MTU" feature). Otherwise the modem hangs forever and stops responding
    to any QMI messages. This doesn't happen when switching to Raw-IP mode.

 2. With QMAP, the struct bam_dmux_hdr->len is always set to 0xffff (65535)
    instead of the actual packet length, which means my current driver
    just drops those packets ("Data larger than buffer? (65535 > 4088)").

    This is also handled in your commit (you get the size from the SPS
    driver instead), but the bam_dma driver in mainline currently does
    not have this feature. :/

 3. I sent some ping packets but never got the signal to "enable large
    MTU" from the modem. Something is still strange here. :/

Given all these complications (that are not present when ignoring QMAP)
I would generally agree with you that it's not worth supporting this:

> Since this not something an end user should ever exercise, you may want to
> consider dropping it.
> 

Personally, I have indeed no need for it. I just suspect someone might
want this eventually for one of the following two use cases:

  1. Multiplexing on new firmwares: AFAICT there is only one BAM-DMUX
     channel on recent firmware versions (e.g. MSM8937/MDM9607). In that
     case multiple connections are only possible through the multiplexing
     layer in QMAP. I've been told the multiplexing is actually useful and
     necessary in some cases (maybe it was for some MMS configurations,
     I don't remember exactly).

  2. USB tethering: I know some people are working on mainline Linux
     for some MDM9607-based USB modems and they will probably want the
     weird USB tethering feature at some point.

But all in all given all the trouble involved when making QMAP work
I think I will just ignore that feature for now and wait until someone
shows up who absolutely needs this feature...

Thanks again for all the explanations!
Stephan