| Message ID | 20220316031117.7311-1-tinghan.shen@mediatek.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v4] remoteproc: mediatek: Fix side effect of mt8195 sram power on | expand |
Good morning, On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:11:17AM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote: > The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. > These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. > > Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are > placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is > blocked too. > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. > > This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time > blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have > to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access > EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected > behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at > the same time. > > Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp") > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> > --- > v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags > v3: fix build error > v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls > --- > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++ > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4) > + > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 > #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > return 0; > } > > -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) > +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) Why is @reserved_mask needed? It is not described in the changelong and as far as I can see in this patchset the parameter is always set to '0', which has no effect on the mask that gets generated. Thanks, Mathieu > { > int i; > > for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > writel(0, addr); > } > > -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) > +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > { > int i; > > writel(0, addr); > for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > } > > static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > @@ -391,11 +391,32 @@ static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); > > /* enable SRAM clock */ > - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0); > - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1); > - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2); > - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN); > - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > + > + /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > +{ > + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); > + > + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); > + > + /* enable SRAM clock */ > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ > writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); > @@ -551,11 +572,25 @@ static void mt8183_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) > static void mt8192_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) > { > /* Disable SRAM clock */ > - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0); > - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1); > - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2); > - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN); > - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > + > + /* Disable SCP watchdog */ > + writel(0, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG); > +} > + > +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) > +{ > + /* Disable SRAM clock */ > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > /* Disable SCP watchdog */ > writel(0, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG); > @@ -901,11 +936,11 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8192_of_data = { > > static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data = { > .scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get, > - .scp_before_load = mt8192_scp_before_load, > + .scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_before_load, > .scp_irq_handler = mt8192_scp_irq_handler, > .scp_reset_assert = mt8192_scp_reset_assert, > .scp_reset_deassert = mt8192_scp_reset_deassert, > - .scp_stop = mt8192_scp_stop, > + .scp_stop = mt8195_scp_stop, > .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va, > .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET, > .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT, > -- > 2.15.GIT >
Il 16/03/22 17:34, Mathieu Poirier ha scritto: > Good morning, > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:11:17AM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote: >> The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. >> >> L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. >> >> L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. >> These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. >> >> Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are >> placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is >> blocked too. >> >> L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. >> >> This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP >> L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time >> blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have >> to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access >> EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected >> behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at >> the same time. >> >> Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp") >> Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> >> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> >> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> >> --- >> v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags >> v3: fix build error >> v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++ >> drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h >> index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h >> @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ >> #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 >> #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 >> >> +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4) >> + >> #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 >> #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c >> index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c >> @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) >> return 0; >> } >> >> -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) >> +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > Why is @reserved_mask needed? It is not described in the changelong and as far > as I can see in this patchset the parameter is always set to '0', which has no > effect on the mask that gets generated. > Hello Mathieu, the @reserved_mask is explained in perhaps not very very clear terms, meaning that he's not explicitly saying the name of the new param, but that's it: "This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP L1TCM." ....and it's actually being used, check below.... > Thanks, > Mathieu > >> { >> int i; >> >> for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) >> - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); >> + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); >> writel(0, addr); >> } >> >> -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) >> +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) ...snip... >> +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) >> +{ >> + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ >> + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); >> + >> + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); >> + >> + /* enable SRAM clock */ >> + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, >> + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); here ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); >> >> /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ >> writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); ...snip... >> + >> +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) >> +{ >> + /* Disable SRAM clock */ >> + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); >> + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, >> + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); and here ^^^^^^^^ >> + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); >> Cheers, Angelo
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 05:44:04PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 16/03/22 17:34, Mathieu Poirier ha scritto: > > Good morning, > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:11:17AM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote: > > > The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. > > > These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. > > > > > > Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are > > > placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is > > > blocked too. > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. > > > > > > This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > > > L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time > > > blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have > > > to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access > > > EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected > > > behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at > > > the same time. > > > > > > Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp") > > > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> > > > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags > > > v3: fix build error > > > v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls > > > --- > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++ > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 > > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4) > > > + > > > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 > > > #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > > +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > > > Why is @reserved_mask needed? It is not described in the changelong and as far > > as I can see in this patchset the parameter is always set to '0', which has no > > effect on the mask that gets generated. > > > > Hello Mathieu, > the @reserved_mask is explained in perhaps not very very clear terms, meaning > that he's not explicitly saying the name of the new param, but that's it: > > "This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > L1TCM." > > ....and it's actually being used, check below.... > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > > { > > > int i; > > > for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) > > > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > > > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > > > writel(0, addr); > > > } > > > -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > > +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > ...snip... > > > > +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > +{ > > > + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ > > > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); > > > + > > > + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); > > > + > > > + /* enable SRAM clock */ > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > > here Yes - it's obvious now that you point it out. This patch conflicts with the newly added support for mt8186[1]. I tried to fix it but did not know if mt8185 needed the same kind of bit masking as mt8195. Please have a look and rebase to rproc-next. Thanks, Mathieu [1]. 80d691854ffb remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8186 scp > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > > /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ > > > writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); > > ...snip... > > > > + > > > +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > +{ > > > + /* Disable SRAM clock */ > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > > and here ^^^^^^^^ > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > Cheers, > Angelo
Hi Mathieu, On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 10:25 -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 05:44:04PM +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > Il 16/03/22 17:34, Mathieu Poirier ha scritto: > > > Good morning, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:11:17AM +0800, Tinghan Shen wrote: > > > > The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. > > > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. > > > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. > > > > These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. > > > > > > > > Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are > > > > placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is > > > > blocked too. > > > > > > > > L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. > > > > > > > > This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > > > > L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time > > > > blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have > > > > to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access > > > > EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected > > > > behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at > > > > the same time. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp") > > > > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags > > > > v3: fix build error > > > > v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls > > > > --- > > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++ > > > > drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > > > > 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > > index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ > > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 > > > > #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 > > > > +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4) > > > > + > > > > #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 > > > > #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > > index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c > > > > @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > > return 0; > > > > } > > > > -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > > > +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > > > > > Why is @reserved_mask needed? It is not described in the changelong and as far > > > as I can see in this patchset the parameter is always set to '0', which has no > > > effect on the mask that gets generated. > > > > > > > Hello Mathieu, > > the @reserved_mask is explained in perhaps not very very clear terms, meaning > > that he's not explicitly saying the name of the new param, but that's it: > > > > "This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP > > L1TCM." > > > > ....and it's actually being used, check below.... > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mathieu > > > > > > > { > > > > int i; > > > > for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) > > > > - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); > > > > + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); > > > > writel(0, addr); > > > > } > > > > -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) > > > > +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) > > > > ...snip... > > > > > > +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > > +{ > > > > + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ > > > > + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); > > > > + > > > > + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); > > > > + > > > > + /* enable SRAM clock */ > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > > > > > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > > > > here > > Yes - it's obvious now that you point it out. > > This patch conflicts with the newly added support for mt8186[1]. I tried to fix > it but did not know if mt8185 needed the same kind of bit masking as mt8195. > Please have a look and rebase to rproc-next. > > Thanks, > Mathieu Ok, I'll rebase to rproc-next at next version. Thank you! Best regards, TingHan > > [1]. 80d691854ffb remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8186 scp > > > > > > > + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > > > /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ > > > > writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); > > > > ...snip... > > > > > > + > > > > +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) > > > > +{ > > > > + /* Disable SRAM clock */ > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, > > > > + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); > > > > and here ^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); > > > > Cheers, > > Angelo
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h index 5ff3867c72f3..ff954a06637c 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h @@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_IRQ 0x10030 #define MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG 0x10034 +#define MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS GENMASK(7, 4) + #define SCP_FW_VER_LEN 32 #define SCP_SHARE_BUFFER_SIZE 288 diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c index 36e48cf58ed6..5f686fe09203 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c @@ -365,22 +365,22 @@ static int mt8183_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) return 0; } -static void mt8192_power_on_sram(void __iomem *addr) +static void scp_sram_power_on(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) { int i; for (i = 31; i >= 0; i--) - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); writel(0, addr); } -static void mt8192_power_off_sram(void __iomem *addr) +static void scp_sram_power_off(void __iomem *addr, u32 reserved_mask) { int i; writel(0, addr); for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) - writel(GENMASK(i, 0), addr); + writel(GENMASK(i, 0) & ~reserved_mask, addr); } static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) @@ -391,11 +391,32 @@ static int mt8192_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); /* enable SRAM clock */ - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0); - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1); - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2); - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN); - mt8192_power_on_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); + + /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); + + return 0; +} + +static int mt8195_scp_before_load(struct mtk_scp *scp) +{ + /* clear SPM interrupt, SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR */ + writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_SCP2SPM_IPC_CLR); + + writel(1, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_SW_RSTN_SET); + + /* enable SRAM clock */ + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); + scp_sram_power_on(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); /* enable MPU for all memory regions */ writel(0xff, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_MEM_ATT_PREDEF); @@ -551,11 +572,25 @@ static void mt8183_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) static void mt8192_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) { /* Disable SRAM clock */ - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0); - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1); - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2); - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN); - mt8192_power_off_sram(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); + + /* Disable SCP watchdog */ + writel(0, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG); +} + +static void mt8195_scp_stop(struct mtk_scp *scp) +{ + /* Disable SRAM clock */ + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_0, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_1, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L2TCM_SRAM_PD_2, 0); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN, + MT8195_L1TCM_SRAM_PDN_RESERVED_RSI_BITS); + scp_sram_power_off(scp->reg_base + MT8192_CPU0_SRAM_PD, 0); /* Disable SCP watchdog */ writel(0, scp->reg_base + MT8192_CORE0_WDT_CFG); @@ -901,11 +936,11 @@ static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8192_of_data = { static const struct mtk_scp_of_data mt8195_of_data = { .scp_clk_get = mt8195_scp_clk_get, - .scp_before_load = mt8192_scp_before_load, + .scp_before_load = mt8195_scp_before_load, .scp_irq_handler = mt8192_scp_irq_handler, .scp_reset_assert = mt8192_scp_reset_assert, .scp_reset_deassert = mt8192_scp_reset_deassert, - .scp_stop = mt8192_scp_stop, + .scp_stop = mt8195_scp_stop, .scp_da_to_va = mt8192_scp_da_to_va, .host_to_scp_reg = MT8192_GIPC_IN_SET, .host_to_scp_int_bit = MT8192_HOST_IPC_INT_BIT,
The definition of L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits on mt8195 is different to mt8192. L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[3:0] control the power of mt8195 L1TCM SRAM. L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[7:4] control the access path to EMI for SCP. These bits have to be powered on to allow EMI access for SCP. Bits[7:4] also affect audio DSP because audio DSP and SCP are placed on the same hardware bus. If SCP cannot access EMI, audio DSP is blocked too. L1TCM_SRAM_PDN bits[31:8] are not used. This fix removes modification of bits[7:4] when power on/off mt8195 SCP L1TCM. It's because the modification introduces a short period of time blocking audio DSP to access EMI. This was not a problem until we have to load both SCP module and audio DSP module. audio DSP needs to access EMI because it has source/data on DRAM. Audio DSP will have unexpected behavior when it accesses EMI and the SCP driver blocks the EMI path at the same time. Fixes: 79111df414fc ("remoteproc: mediatek: Support mt8195 scp") Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> --- v4: add Fixes and Reviewed-by tags v3: fix build error v2: apply comments about macro definition and function calls --- drivers/remoteproc/mtk_common.h | 2 ++ drivers/remoteproc/mtk_scp.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)