[PATCH v4] bus: mhi: host: don't free bhie tables during suspend/hibernation

[Jeff Hugo]

On 5/14/2025 1:17 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 5/13/25 8:16 PM, Jeff Hugo wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 12:44 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>> On 5/12/25 11:46 PM, Jeff Hugo wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2025 8:49 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>>>> Fix dma_direct_alloc() failure at resume time during bhie_table
>>>>> allocation because of memory pressure. There is a report where at
>>>>> resume time, the memory from the dma doesn't get allocated and MHI
>>>>> fails to re-initialize.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix it, don't free the memory at power down during suspend /
>>>>> hibernation. Instead, use the same allocated memory again after every
>>>>> resume / hibernation. This patch has been tested with resume and
>>>>> hibernation both.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rddm is of constant size for a given hardware. While the fbc_image
>>>>> size depends on the firmware. If the firmware changes, we'll free and
>>>>> allocate new memory for it.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it valid to load new firmware as a result of suspend?  I don't
>>>> users would expect that.
>>> I'm not sure its valid or not. Like other users, I also don't expect
>>> that firmware would get changed. It doesn't seem to be tested and hence
>>> supported case.
>>>
>>> But other drivers have code which have implementation like this. I'd
>>> mentioned previously that this patch was motivated from the ath12k [1]
>>> and ath11k [2] patches. They don't free the memory and reuse the same
>>> memory if new size is same.
>>
>> It feels like this justification needs to be detailed in the commit
>> text. I suspect at some point we'll have another MHI device where the FW
>> will need to be cached.
> Okay. I'll add this information to the commit message. Currently I've
> not seen firmware caching being used other than graphics driver.
> 
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c
>>>>> index efa3b6dddf4d2..bc8459798bbee 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/boot.c
>>>>> @@ -584,10 +584,17 @@ void mhi_fw_load_handler(struct mhi_controller
>>>>> *mhi_cntrl)
>>>>>          * device transitioning into MHI READY state
>>>>>          */
>>>>>         if (fw_load_type == MHI_FW_LOAD_FBC) {
>>>>
>>>> Why is this FBC specific?
>>> It seems we allocate fbc_image only when firmware load type is
>>> FW_LOAD_FBC. I'm just optimizing the buffer allocation here.
>>
>> We alloc bhie tables in non FBC usecases. Is this somehow an FBC
>> specific issue? Perhaps you could clarify the limits of this solution in
>> the commit text?
> Okay. I'll add information that we are optimizing the bhie allocations.
> It has nothing to do with firmware type. I've found only 2 bhie
> allocations; fbc_image and rddm_image. So we are optimizing those.

There is a 3rd allocation, and it has everything to do with firmware 
type. Did you miss mhi_load_image_bhie()?  I'm not asking you to touch 
mhi_load_image_bhie(), but to recognize that what you are doing is 
specific to some BHIe devices, not all.

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -        ret = mhi_alloc_bhie_table(mhi_cntrl, &mhi_cntrl->fbc_image,
>>>>> fw_sz);
>>>>> -        if (ret) {
>>>>> -            release_firmware(firmware);
>>>>> -            goto error_fw_load;
>>>>> +        if (mhi_cntrl->fbc_image && fw_sz != mhi_cntrl->prev_fw_sz) {
>>>>> +            mhi_free_bhie_table(mhi_cntrl, mhi_cntrl->fbc_image);
>>>>> +            mhi_cntrl->fbc_image = NULL;
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +        if (!mhi_cntrl->fbc_image) {
>>>>> +            ret = mhi_alloc_bhie_table(mhi_cntrl, &mhi_cntrl-
>>>>>> fbc_image, fw_sz);
>>>>> +            if (ret) {
>>>>> +                release_firmware(firmware);
>>>>> +                goto error_fw_load;
>>>>> +            }
>>>>> +            mhi_cntrl->prev_fw_sz = fw_sz;
>>>>>             }
>>>>>               /* Load the firmware into BHIE vec table */
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pm.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pm.c
>>>>> index e6c3ff62bab1d..107d71b4cc51a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pm.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pm.c
>>>>> @@ -1259,10 +1259,19 @@ void mhi_power_down(struct mhi_controller
>>>>> *mhi_cntrl, bool graceful)
>>>>>     }
>>>>>     EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_power_down);
>>>>>     +static void __mhi_power_down_unprepare_keep_dev(struct
>>>>> mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    mhi_cntrl->bhi = NULL;
>>>>> +    mhi_cntrl->bhie = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>> This function is shorter version of mhi_unprepare_after_power_down(). As
>>> we need different code path in case of suspend/hibernation case, I was
>>> adding a new API which Mani asked me remove and consolidate into
>>> mhi_power_down_keep_dev() instead. So this static function has been
>>> added. [3]
>>
>> I don't understand the need to zero these out.  Also, if you are copying
>> part of the functionality of mhi_unprepare_after_power_down(), shouldn't
>> that functionality be moved into your new API to eliminate duplication?
> This how the cleanup works mhi_unprepare_after_power_down(). Yeah, it
> makes sense to use this function in mhi_unprepare_after_power_down().
> 
> Sending next version soon.
>>
> 
>