lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add suspend and resume support
From
Date
[ +Marc for MSI bits ]

On 2021-07-21 02:33, Bixuan Cui wrote:
> Add suspend and resume support for arm-smmu-v3 by low-power mode.
>
> When the smmu is suspended, it is powered off and the registers are
> cleared. So saves the msi_msg context during msi interrupt initialization
> of smmu. When resume happens it calls arm_smmu_device_reset() to restore
> the registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
> ---
>
> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> index 235f9bdaeaf2..bf1163acbcb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu-v3/arm-smmu-v3.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_bypass,
>
> static bool disable_msipolling;
> module_param(disable_msipolling, bool, 0444);
> +static bool bypass;
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_msipolling,
> "Disable MSI-based polling for CMD_SYNC completion.");
>
> @@ -3129,11 +3130,37 @@ static void arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(struct msi_desc *desc, struct msi_msg *msg)
> doorbell = (((u64)msg->address_hi) << 32) | msg->address_lo;
> doorbell &= MSI_CFG0_ADDR_MASK;
>
> + /* Saves the msg context for resume if desc->msg is empty */
> + if (desc->msg.address_lo == 0 && desc->msg.address_hi == 0) {
> + desc->msg.address_lo = msg->address_lo;
> + desc->msg.address_hi = msg->address_hi;
> + desc->msg.data = msg->data;
> + }

My gut feeling is that this is something a device driver maybe shouldn't
be poking into, but I'm not entirely familiar with the area :/

> +
> writeq_relaxed(doorbell, smmu->base + cfg[0]);
> writel_relaxed(msg->data, smmu->base + cfg[1]);
> writel_relaxed(ARM_SMMU_MEMATTR_DEVICE_nGnRE, smmu->base + cfg[2]);
> }
>
> +static void arm_smmu_resume_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +{
> + struct msi_desc *desc;
> + struct device *dev = smmu->dev;
> +
> + for_each_msi_entry(desc, dev) {
> + switch (desc->platform.msi_index) {
> + case EVTQ_MSI_INDEX:
> + case GERROR_MSI_INDEX:
> + case PRIQ_MSI_INDEX:
> + arm_smmu_write_msi_msg(desc, &(desc->msg));
> + break;
> + default:
> + continue;
> +
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> {
> struct msi_desc *desc;
> @@ -3184,11 +3211,17 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_msis(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> devm_add_action(dev, arm_smmu_free_msis, dev);
> }
>
> -static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> {
> int irq, ret;
>
> - arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> + if (!resume_mode)
> + arm_smmu_setup_msis(smmu);
> + else {
> + /* The irq doesn't need to be re-requested during resume */
> + arm_smmu_resume_msis(smmu);
> + return;

What about wired IRQs?

> + }
>
> /* Request interrupt lines */
> irq = smmu->evtq.q.irq;
> @@ -3230,7 +3263,7 @@ static void arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> }
> }
>
> -static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> +static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)
> {
> int ret, irq;
> u32 irqen_flags = IRQ_CTRL_EVTQ_IRQEN | IRQ_CTRL_GERROR_IRQEN;
> @@ -3257,7 +3290,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_setup_irqs(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> if (ret < 0)
> dev_warn(smmu->dev, "failed to enable combined irq\n");
> } else
> - arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu);
> + arm_smmu_setup_unique_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
>
> if (smmu->features & ARM_SMMU_FEAT_PRI)
> irqen_flags |= IRQ_CTRL_PRIQ_IRQEN;
> @@ -3282,7 +3315,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_disable(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> +static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool resume_mode)

Er, what about the use of "bypass" towards the end of the function. Have
you even compiled this?

> {
> int ret;
> u32 reg, enables;
> @@ -3392,7 +3425,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_reset(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu, bool bypass)
> }
> }
>
> - ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu);
> + ret = arm_smmu_setup_irqs(smmu, resume_mode);
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(smmu->dev, "failed to setup irqs\n");
> return ret;
> @@ -3749,6 +3782,24 @@ static void __iomem *arm_smmu_ioremap(struct device *dev, resource_size_t start,
> return devm_ioremap_resource(dev, &res);
> }
>
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + /*
> + * The smmu is powered off and related registers are automatically
> + * cleared when suspend. No need to do anything.
> + */

Is that guaranteed? What if suspend is only implemented by external
clock-gating?

> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, true);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> int irq, ret;
> @@ -3756,7 +3807,6 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> resource_size_t ioaddr;
> struct arm_smmu_device *smmu;
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> - bool bypass;

Once again...

> smmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!smmu)
> @@ -3831,7 +3881,7 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, smmu);
>
> /* Reset the device */
> - ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, bypass);

...either this is based on some out-of-tree hack which introduced its
own uninitialised-usage bug here, or it doesn't even compile.

> + ret = arm_smmu_device_reset(smmu, false);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -3884,6 +3934,11 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>
> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
> + .suspend = arm_smmu_suspend,
> + .resume = arm_smmu_resume,

Either use SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS() here or drop the __maybe_unused
annmotations above - they're pointless if the callbacks are referenced
unconditionally.

Robin.

> +};
> +
> static void arm_smmu_driver_unregister(struct platform_driver *drv)
> {
> arm_smmu_sva_notifier_synchronize();
> @@ -3895,6 +3950,7 @@ static struct platform_driver arm_smmu_driver = {
> .name = "arm-smmu-v3",
> .of_match_table = arm_smmu_of_match,
> .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> + .pm = &arm_smmu_pm_ops,
> },
> .probe = arm_smmu_device_probe,
> .remove = arm_smmu_device_remove,
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-21 13:56    [W:0.083 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site