Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
Hi Kumar,
I pulled this in to my 3.14 tree and gave it a spin. But I keep
hitting the case of unlock below telling me that someone else is
holding the lock.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
> +
> +static int msm_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> +{
> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
> +
> + writel_relaxed(SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC, lock_addr);
You need some sort of barrier here; the caf code have a smp_mb() here,
inserting that solves the problem.
> +
> + return readl_relaxed(lock_addr) == SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC;
> +}
> +
> +static void msm_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> +{
> + u32 lock_owner;
> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
> +
> + lock_owner = readl_relaxed(lock_addr);
> + if (lock_owner != SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC) {
> + pr_err("%s: spinlock not owned by us (actual owner is %d)\n",
> + __func__, lock_owner);
> + }
> +
> + writel_relaxed(0, lock_addr);
> +}
> +
Part of this I think this driver looks good, it would be nice to get
the last details cleaned up so we could get it into the tree.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On Aug 19, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 23:54 +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Indeed, I tend to think that reg-names is a bad idea. >> >> IIRC, the rule for "reg" is that entries must always have a defined >> order, so that it can always be accessed by integer index. > > First time I hear about that rule, really... > >> And given >> that's true, allowing for reg-names just creates confusion since it >> implies you can look up the index in reg-names and then read reg at that >> index. > > I actually believe that named resources leave less are for error than > indexed ones. And this is the message I remember being "spread" in the > times of static platform devices. > > Pawel I can understand that reg-names being optional for older bindings to ensure backwards compat, but for newer ones agree that it is less error prone. This is something we should try to come to some agreement on. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On Aug 16, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/14/2013 01:09 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> Add driver for Qualcomm MSM Hardware Mutex block that exists on newer MSM >> SoC (MSM8974, etc). > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt > >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex" >> +- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers >> +- reg-names: >> +"mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers >> +- qcom,num-locks: the number of locks/mutexes supported > > Doesn't the block support any interrupts? I suppose the interrupts > property can be optional though even if it does. No interrupts on the block. > Aside from the comments re: reg-names, this binding seems fine. > -- - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On Aug 15, 2013, at 8:35 AM, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 20:09 +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex" >> +- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers >> +- reg-names: >> +"mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers > > Just out of curiosity, why is reg-names required? Especially if there > seem to be only one set of registers? > > Paweł At one point I thought there was going to be more than one reg region, I can drop it. However, I dont see any issue with a binding making it required if it desires. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 23:54 +0100, Stephen Warren wrote: > Indeed, I tend to think that reg-names is a bad idea. > > IIRC, the rule for "reg" is that entries must always have a defined > order, so that it can always be accessed by integer index. First time I hear about that rule, really... > And given > that's true, allowing for reg-names just creates confusion since it > implies you can look up the index in reg-names and then read reg at that > index. I actually believe that named resources leave less are for error than indexed ones. And this is the message I remember being "spread" in the times of static platform devices. Pawel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On 08/15/2013 07:35 AM, Pawel Moll wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 20:09 +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex" >> +- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers >> +- reg-names: >> +"mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers > > Just out of curiosity, why is reg-names required? Especially if there > seem to be only one set of registers? Indeed, I tend to think that reg-names is a bad idea. IIRC, the rule for "reg" is that entries must always have a defined order, so that it can always be accessed by integer index. And given that's true, allowing for reg-names just creates confusion since it implies you can look up the index in reg-names and then read reg at that index. Now the same isn't true for clocks/clock-names for example, where it's defined that there is no order, so you must search clock-names first. Inconsistency in rules, uggh. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On 08/14/2013 01:09 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > Add driver for Qualcomm MSM Hardware Mutex block that exists on newer MSM > SoC (MSM8974, etc). > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt > +Required properties: > +- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex" > +- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers > +- reg-names: > + "mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers > +- qcom,num-locks: the number of locks/mutexes supported Doesn't the block support any interrupts? I suppose the interrupts property can be optional though even if it does. Aside from the comments re: reg-names, this binding seems fine. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 20:09 +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: > +Required properties: > +- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex" > +- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers > +- reg-names: > + "mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers Just out of curiosity, why is reg-names required? Especially if there seem to be only one set of registers? Paweł -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On 08/14, Kumar Gala wrote: > Add driver for Qualcomm MSM Hardware Mutex block that exists on newer MSM > SoC (MSM8974, etc). > > CC: Jeffrey Hugo > CC: Eric Holmberg > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala Looks good. Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd > --- > v3: > * moved dt binding into hwlock/ > * removed smp_mb() as they were not needed > * cleanup warning > > v2: > * Fixed init of stride > * Dealt with a number of comments from Stephen Boyd: > - use of instead of > - declaring msm_hwspinlock_of_match once & as const > - drop unneccessary () in an if statement > - style cleanup to have devm_kzalloc on one line > -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH v3] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
Add driver for Qualcomm MSM Hardware Mutex block that exists on newer MSM
SoC (MSM8974, etc).
CC: Jeffrey Hugo
CC: Eric Holmberg
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala
---
v3:
* moved dt binding into hwlock/
* removed smp_mb() as they were not needed
* cleanup warning
v2:
* Fixed init of stride
* Dealt with a number of comments from Stephen Boyd:
- use of instead of
- declaring msm_hwspinlock_of_match once & as const
- drop unneccessary () in an if statement
- style cleanup to have devm_kzalloc on one line
.../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt | 20 +++
drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig | 11 ++
drivers/hwspinlock/Makefile| 1 +
drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c| 149 +
4 files changed, 181 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt
create mode 100644 drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000..56740a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/msm-tcsr-mutex.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+Qualcomm MSM Hardware Mutex Block:
+
+The hardware block provides mutexes utilized between different processors
+on the SoC as part of the communication protocol used by these processors.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: should be "qcom,tcsr-mutex"
+- reg: Should contain registers location and length of mutex registers
+- reg-names:
+ "mutex-base" - string to identify mutex registers
+- qcom,num-locks: the number of locks/mutexes supported
+
+Example:
+
+ hwlock@fd484000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
+ reg = <0xfd484000 0x1000>;
+ reg-names = "mutex-base";
+ qcom,num-locks = <32>;
+ };
diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig b/drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig
index 70637d2..192e939 100644
--- a/drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/Kconfig
@@ -8,6 +8,17 @@ config HWSPINLOCK
menu "Hardware Spinlock drivers"
+config HWSPINLOCK_MSM
+ tristate "MSM Hardware Spinlock device"
+ depends on ARCH_MSM
+ select HWSPINLOCK
+ help
+ Say y here to support the MSM Hardware Mutex functionality, which
+ provides a synchronisation mechanism for the various processors on
+ the SoC.
+
+ If unsure, say N.
+
config HWSPINLOCK_OMAP
tristate "OMAP Hardware Spinlock device"
depends on ARCH_OMAP4 || SOC_OMAP5
diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/Makefile b/drivers/hwspinlock/Makefile
index 93eb64b..4074c56 100644
--- a/drivers/hwspinlock/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/Makefile
@@ -3,5 +3,6 @@
#
obj-$(CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK) += hwspinlock_core.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK_MSM) += msm_hwspinlock.o
obj-$(CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK_OMAP) += omap_hwspinlock.o
obj-$(CONFIG_HSEM_U8500) += u8500_hsem.o
diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
b/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..6fa018e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public
+ * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and
+ * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ */
+
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+#include
+
+#include "hwspinlock_internal.h"
+
+#define SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC 1
+#define BASE_ID0
+
+static int msm_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
+{
+ void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
+
+ writel_relaxed(SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC, lock_addr);
+
+ return readl_relaxed(lock_addr) == SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC;
+}
+
+static void msm_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
+{
+ u32 lock_owner;
+ void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
+
+ lock_owner = readl_relaxed(lock_addr);
+ if (lock_owner != SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC) {
+ pr_err("%s: spinlock not owned by us (actual owner is %d)\n",
+ __func__, lock_owner);
+ }
+
+ writel_relaxed(0, lock_addr);
+}
+
+static const struct hwspinlock_ops msm_hwspinlock_ops = {
+ .trylock= msm_hwspinlock_trylock,
+ .unlock = msm_hwspinlock_unlock,
+};
+
+static const struct of_device_id msm_hwspinlock_of_match[] = {
+ {
+ .compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex",
+ .data = (void *)
