Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:30:49 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] remoteproc: qcom: Add support for memory sandbox | From | Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu <> |
| |
On 8/15/2022 12:07 PM, Christophe JAILLET wrote: Thanks for Your time and valuable insights CJ !!! > Le 12/08/2022 à 14:47, Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu a écrit : >> Update pil driver with SMMU mapping for allowing authorised >> memory access to ADSP firmware, by reading required memory >> regions either from device tree file or from resource table >> embedded in ADSP binary header. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivasa Rao Mandadapu >> <quic_srivasam-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> >> --- >> Changes since V3: >> -- Rename is_adsp_sb_needed to adsp_sandbox_needed. >> -- Add smmu unmapping in error case and in adsp stop. >> Changes since V2: >> -- Replace platform_bus_type with adsp->dev->bus. >> -- Use API of_parse_phandle_with_args() instead of >> of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(). >> -- Replace adsp->is_wpss with adsp->is_adsp. >> -- Update error handling in adsp_start(). >> >> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c | 172 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 170 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c >> b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c >> index b0a63a0..ca45d2c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ >> #include <linux/firmware.h> >> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >> #include <linux/io.h> >> +#include <linux/iommu.h> >> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >> #include <linux/kernel.h> >> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> >> @@ -48,6 +49,8 @@ >> #define LPASS_PWR_ON_REG 0x10 >> #define LPASS_HALTREQ_REG 0x0 >> +#define SID_MASK_DEFAULT 0xF >> + >> #define QDSP6SS_XO_CBCR 0x38 >> #define QDSP6SS_CORE_CBCR 0x20 >> #define QDSP6SS_SLEEP_CBCR 0x3c >> @@ -78,7 +81,7 @@ struct adsp_pil_data { >> struct qcom_adsp { >> struct device *dev; >> struct rproc *rproc; >> - >> + struct iommu_domain *iommu_dom; >> struct qcom_q6v5 q6v5; >> struct clk *xo; >> @@ -333,6 +336,155 @@ static int adsp_load(struct rproc *rproc, const >> struct firmware *fw) >> return 0; >> } >> +static void adsp_of_unmap_smmu(struct iommu_domain *iommu_dom, >> const __be32 *prop, int len) >> +{ >> + unsigned long mem_phys; >> + unsigned long iova; >> + unsigned int mem_size; >> + int access_level; >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { >> + iova = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + mem_phys = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + mem_size = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + access_level = be32_to_cpu(prop[i]); >> + iommu_unmap(iommu_dom, iova, mem_size); >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static void adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(struct rproc *rproc, int len) >> +{ >> + struct fw_rsc_devmem *rsc_fw; >> + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; >> + int offset; >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { >> + offset = rproc->table_ptr->offset[i]; >> + hdr = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + offset; >> + rsc_fw = (struct fw_rsc_devmem *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); >> + >> + iommu_unmap(rproc->domain, rsc_fw->da, rsc_fw->len); >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static void adsp_unmap_smmu(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ > > When I proposed a adsp_unmap_smmu() function, the idea was to undo > everything that is donne by adsp_map_smmu(). > iommu_domain_alloc() and iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, ..) are not undone > here. > > If this make sense, it would improve the semantic, simplify the > 'adsp_smmu_unmap' label in adsp_start() and avoid what looks like a > leak to me in adsp_stop(). Okay. Will modify accordingly and re post it. > > >> + struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv; >> + const __be32 *prop; >> + unsigned int len; >> + >> + prop = of_get_property(adsp->dev->of_node, >> "qcom,adsp-memory-regions", &len); >> + if (prop) { > > In the allocation path, you have a "len /= sizeof(__be32);" which is > not here. Is it needed? Yes It's missing. will ad it. > > You call adsp_unmap_smmu() from the error handling path of > adsp_map_smmu(). If needed, maybe it should be part of > adsp_of_unmap_smmu()? Okay. Will modify accordingly and re post it. > >> + adsp_of_unmap_smmu(adsp->iommu_dom, prop, len); >> + } else { >> + if (rproc->table_ptr) >> + adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(rproc, rproc->table_ptr->num); >> + } >> +} >> + >> +static int adsp_map_smmu(struct qcom_adsp *adsp, struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + struct of_phandle_args args; >> + struct fw_rsc_devmem *rsc_fw; >> + struct fw_rsc_hdr *hdr; >> + const __be32 *prop; >> + long long sid; >> + unsigned long mem_phys; >> + unsigned long iova; >> + unsigned int mem_size; >> + unsigned int flag; >> + unsigned int len; >> + int access_level; >> + int offset; >> + int ret; >> + int rc; > > Are ret and rc both needed? Yes it's redundant. Will replace it with ret. > >> + int i; >> + >> + rc = of_parse_phandle_with_args(adsp->dev->of_node, "iommus", >> "#iommu-cells", 0, &args); >> + if (rc < 0) >> + sid = -1; >> + else >> + sid = args.args[0] & SID_MASK_DEFAULT; >> + >> + adsp->iommu_dom = iommu_domain_alloc(adsp->dev->bus); >> + if (!adsp->iommu_dom) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to allocate iommu domain\n"); >> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> + goto domain_free; >> + } >> + >> + ret = iommu_attach_device(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->dev); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "could not attach device ret = %d\n", ret); >> + ret = -EBUSY; >> + goto detach_device; >> + } >> + >> + /* Add SID configuration for ADSP Firmware to SMMU */ >> + adsp->mem_phys = adsp->mem_phys | (sid << 32); >> + >> + ret = iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_phys, >> + adsp->mem_size, IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "Unable to map ADSP Physical Memory\n"); >> + goto sid_unmap; >> + } >> + >> + prop = of_get_property(adsp->dev->of_node, >> "qcom,adsp-memory-regions", &len); >> + if (prop) { >> + len /= sizeof(__be32); >> + for (i = 0; i < len; i++) { >> + iova = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + mem_phys = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + mem_size = be32_to_cpu(prop[i++]); >> + access_level = be32_to_cpu(prop[i]); >> + >> + if (access_level) >> + flag = IOMMU_READ | IOMMU_WRITE; >> + else >> + flag = IOMMU_READ; >> + >> + ret = iommu_map(adsp->iommu_dom, iova, mem_phys, >> mem_size, flag); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to map addr = %p mem_size >> = %x\n", >> + &(mem_phys), mem_size); >> + goto smmu_unmap; >> + } >> + } >> + } else { >> + if (!rproc->table_ptr) >> + goto sid_unmap; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < rproc->table_ptr->num; i++) { >> + offset = rproc->table_ptr->offset[i]; >> + hdr = (void *)rproc->table_ptr + offset; >> + rsc_fw = (struct fw_rsc_devmem *)hdr + sizeof(*hdr); >> + >> + ret = iommu_map(rproc->domain, rsc_fw->da, rsc_fw->pa, >> + rsc_fw->len, rsc_fw->flags); >> + if (ret) { >> + pr_err("%s; unable to map adsp memory address\n", >> __func__); >> + goto rproc_smmu_unmap; >> + } >> + } >> + } > > If you introduce a adsp_of_unmap_smmu() and adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(), > would it make things more readable to have the same kind of functions > when allocating the resources? > > Symmetry often helps. Yes, Agree. Will update accordingly. > >> + return 0; > > Add an empty new line here? > >> +rproc_smmu_unmap: >> + adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(rproc, i); >> + goto sid_unmap; >> +smmu_unmap: >> + adsp_of_unmap_smmu(adsp->iommu_dom, prop, i); >> +sid_unmap: >> + iommu_unmap(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size); >> +detach_device: >> + iommu_domain_free(adsp->iommu_dom); >> +domain_free: >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> + >> static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc) >> { >> struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv; >> @@ -343,9 +495,16 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc) >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed) { >> + ret = adsp_map_smmu(adsp, rproc); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "ADSP smmu mapping failed\n"); >> + goto disable_irqs; >> + } >> + } >> ret = clk_prepare_enable(adsp->xo); >> if (ret) >> - goto disable_irqs; >> + goto adsp_smmu_unmap; >> ret = qcom_rproc_pds_enable(adsp, adsp->proxy_pds, >> adsp->proxy_pd_count); >> @@ -401,6 +560,12 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc) >> qcom_rproc_pds_disable(adsp, adsp->proxy_pds, >> adsp->proxy_pd_count); >> disable_xo_clk: >> clk_disable_unprepare(adsp->xo); >> +adsp_smmu_unmap: >> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed) { >> + iommu_unmap(adsp->iommu_dom, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size); >> + adsp_unmap_smmu(rproc); >> + iommu_domain_free(adsp->iommu_dom); >> + } >> disable_irqs: >> qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5); >> @@ -429,6 +594,9 @@ static int adsp_stop(struct rproc *rproc) >> if (ret) >> dev_err(adsp->dev, "failed to shutdown: %d\n", ret); >> + if (adsp->adsp_sandbox_needed) >> + adsp_unmap_smmu(rproc); > > No need to call iommu_unmap() and iommu_domain_free() here? > (this is the same comment as the one in adsp_rproc_unmap_smmu(). This > is just a blind guess based on symmetry of the code.) Okay. > >> + >> handover = qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5); >> if (handover) >> qcom_adsp_pil_handover(&adsp->q6v5); >
| |