[PATCH v16 13/15] acpi/arm64: Add memory-mapped timer support in GTDT driver
Fu Wei
fu.wei at linaro.org
Wed Nov 23 19:57:23 PST 2016
Hi Lorenzo,
On 23 November 2016 at 19:53, Fu Wei <fu.wei at linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 18 November 2016 at 22:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:49:06PM +0800, fu.wei at linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei at linaro.org>
>>>
>>> On platforms booting with ACPI, architected memory-mapped timers'
>>> configuration data is provided by firmware through the ACPI GTDT
>>> static table.
>>>
>>> The clocksource architected timer kernel driver requires a firmware
>>> interface to collect timer configuration and configure its driver.
>>> this infrastructure is present for device tree systems, but it is
>>> missing on systems booting with ACPI.
>>>
>>> Implement the kernel infrastructure required to parse the static
>>> ACPI GTDT table so that the architected timer clocksource driver can
>>> make use of it on systems booting with ACPI, therefore enabling
>>> the corresponding timers configuration.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei at linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/acpi/arm64/gtdt.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/gtdt.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/gtdt.c
>>> index 2de79aa..08d9506 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/gtdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/gtdt.c
>>> @@ -51,6 +51,14 @@ static inline bool is_timer_block(void *platform_timer)
>>> return gh->type == ACPI_GTDT_TYPE_TIMER_BLOCK;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline struct acpi_gtdt_timer_block *get_timer_block(unsigned int index)
>>> +{
>>> + if (index >= acpi_gtdt_desc.timer_block_count || !timer_block)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + return timer_block[index];
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static inline bool is_watchdog(void *platform_timer)
>>> {
>>> struct acpi_gtdt_header *gh = platform_timer;
>>> @@ -214,3 +222,90 @@ int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>> acpi_gtdt_release();
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Get ONE GT block info for memory-mapped timer from GTDT table.
>>> + * @data: the GT block data (parsing result)
>>> + * @index: the index number of GT block
>>> + * Note: we already verify @data in caller, it can't be NULL here.
>>> + * Returns 0 if success, -EINVAL/-ENODEV if error.
>>> + */
>>
>> Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt
>
> Great thanks , will fix all the comments :-)
>
>>
>>> +int __init gtdt_arch_timer_mem_init(struct arch_timer_mem *data,
>>> + unsigned int index)
>>
>> Nit: acpi_arch_timer_mem_init() to make it consistent with other ACPI
>> calls ?
>
> yes, it makes sense, will do this way for the function which is exported
>
>>
>>> +{
>>> + struct acpi_gtdt_timer_block *block;
>>> + struct acpi_gtdt_timer_entry *frame;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + block = get_timer_block(index);
>>> + if (!block)
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> +
>>> + if (!block->timer_count) {
>>> + pr_err(FW_BUG "GT block present, but frame count is zero.");
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (block->timer_count > ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
>>> + pr_err(FW_BUG "GT block lists %d frames, ACPI spec only allows 8\n",
>>> + block->timer_count);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>
>> Nit: these two checks can be carried out at GTDT init where the GTDT
>> is parsed first. Actually you could have two functions one to init
>
> this check is the verify the data in GT block, but the GTDT init
> won't get into the block,
> so I think that is better to keep this in GT block init function
> "acpi_arch_timer_mem_init()"
>
>> timers (say acpi_gtdt_timers_init()) and one watchdogs, that would
>> eliminate the duplicated timer_block/watchdog arrays (both sized
>> Platform Timer Count) and acpi_gtdt_timers_init() can return
>> the number of entries found so that you can loop with a determined
>> upper bound in the arm arch timer driver.
>
> Yes, I did this way in previous patchset, but we still need to do scan
> loop in both functions for
> two types of platform timer.
> So I decide to keep the scan loop in the acpi_gtdt_init to get the
> number and the entries pointer
> of each type of platform timers in one go. then we don't need to scan
> GTDT in two functions.
I have thought about this again, I think I should keep the loop in each
type of platform timers. The benefit we can get from this are:
(1) reduce the global variables:
static struct acpi_gtdt_timer_block **timer_block __initdata;
static struct acpi_gtdt_watchdog **watchdog __initdata;
make them in thire own init function.
(2) avoid allocating and free memory in different functions.
we also can return all the GT block info in one go.
>
>>
>> Just thinking aloud, these are just improvements I can carry them
>> out later, the more important question here is the interface between the
>> parsing code and the arch timer probing code which depends on other
>> patches and that needs to be agreed, this patch is not really a problem.
>
> yes, every time I modify the interface I have to change the driver :-(
>
>>
>>> + data->cntctlbase = (phys_addr_t)block->block_address;
>>> + /*
>>> + * We can NOT get the size info from GTDT table,
>>> + * but according to "Table * CNTCTLBase memory map" of
>>> + * <ARM Architecture Reference Manual> for ARMv8,
>>> + * it should be 4KB(Offset 0x000 – 0xFFC).
>>
>> That's the reason why it is not explicit in the GTDT table :)
>>
>>> + data->size = SZ_4K;
>>> + data->num_frames = block->timer_count;
>>> +
>>> + frame = (void *)block + block->timer_offset;
>>> + if (frame + block->timer_count != (void *)block + block->header.length)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Get the GT timer Frame data for every GT Block Timer
>>> + */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < block->timer_count; i++, frame++) {
>>> + if (!frame->base_address || !frame->timer_interrupt)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + data->frame[i].phys_irq = map_gt_gsi(frame->timer_interrupt,
>>> + frame->timer_flags);
>>> + if (data->frame[i].phys_irq <= 0) {
>>> + pr_warn("failed to map physical timer irq in frame %d.\n",
>>> + i);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (frame->virtual_timer_interrupt) {
>>> + data->frame[i].virt_irq =
>>> + map_gt_gsi(frame->virtual_timer_interrupt,
>>> + frame->virtual_timer_flags);
>>> + if (data->frame[i].virt_irq <= 0) {
>>> + pr_warn("failed to map virtual timer irq in frame %d.\n",
>>> + i);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>
>> You should unregister phys_irq here for correctness, right ?
>
> yup, thanks for pointing this bug out. :-)
>
>>
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + data->frame[i].frame_nr = frame->frame_number;
>>> + data->frame[i].cntbase = frame->base_address;
>>> + /*
>>> + * We can NOT get the size info from GTDT table,
>>> + * but according to "Table * CNTBaseN memory map" of
>>> + * <ARM Architecture Reference Manual> for ARMv8,
>>> + * it should be 4KB(Offset 0x000 – 0xFFC).
>>
>> See above.
>
> yes, you are right, I will fix both comments
>
>>
>>> + */
>>> + data->frame[i].size = SZ_4K;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (acpi_gtdt_desc.timer_block_count)
>>> + pr_info("parsed No.%d of %d memory-mapped timer block(s).\n",
>>> + index, acpi_gtdt_desc.timer_block_count);
>>
>> I am not sure how helpful this message can be honestly.
>
> yup, I will simplify it :-)
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>> index a1611d1..44b8c1b 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>> @@ -582,6 +582,7 @@ int acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
>>> int acpi_gtdt_map_ppi(int type);
>>> bool acpi_gtdt_c3stop(int type);
>>> void acpi_gtdt_release(void);
>>> +int gtdt_arch_timer_mem_init(struct arch_timer_mem *data, unsigned int index);
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> Overall it looks fine as long as the interface with clocksource is
>> settled, which is what really needs to be agreed upon in this series.
>
> Thanks for your help :-)
>
>>
>> Lorenzo
>>
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> #else /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
>>> --
>>> 2.7.4
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list