Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware loading for new boot architecture
> -Original Message- > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 4:13 PM > To: Stuart Yoder > Cc: Rivera Jose-B46482; Sun York-R58495; u-boot@lists.denx.de > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware > loading for new boot architecture > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:32:56 -0500 > Stuart Yoder wrote: > > > Kim, > > why is this being taken off-list? Adding it back. Also, please don't > top-post. > > > I think it is premature to start focusing on saving single digit > > milliseconds in u-boot. The 35 second boot time you are seeing on > > some ls2085 boards is due to the fact that the MC was running with > > it's CPU caches off until a few weeks ago. DDR is still running at > > the slowest speed, which will affect the MC's performance. It's still > > early in hardware bringup and things are not even stable yet. > > > > I'm still convinced that the MC itself probably has significant > > performance work. > > > > The 1ms delay used polling for MC to boot has nothing to do with DPL > > size. DPL processing is a separate, later initialization step. We're > > just waiting for the MC to initialize here. The MC boot time > > shouldn't vary. My visual reading watching things boot is that the MC > > boot takes a few hundred milliseconds. I don't see what's wrong with > > a 1 ms polling delay here. > > > > On a system with the MC running with caches on, u-boot took 20 seconds > > to boot. The MC took about 5 seconds of that, most of that in DPL > > processing. > > > > We would welcome help analyzing u-boot boot time and where the time is > > going. But, seriously, saving 1 ms is not going to help at all. > > I did a quick experiment and saved ~50ms when setting both udelays down > to 50, which, sure, isn't a big deal given it's out of the order of > 10sec, but it's something, and, like I said, development time for our > users can be seriously helped if MC initialization were omitted from the > main u-boot boot sequence, and occurred only when necessary, i.e., when > users want to use one of the DP net interfaces. Most of the time when we > boot today, we don't use DP net interfaces, so MC init - with or without > DPL processing - is just a waste of our time! > The 50ms improvement you claim will not make any difference to save time For development users, since 50ms is not something humans can perceive. As Stuart said, we (the MC team) should first analyze where is the bulk of The DPL processing by the MC fw is being spent, to see how much we can reduce the 5 seconds spent there. That is, we should be concerned first about where we can save big bucks, before being concerned about where we can save one penny or two. Thanks, German > Thanks, > > Kim > > > Thanks, > > Stuart > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Kim Phillips > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:14:39 -0500 > > > Rivera Jose-B46482 wrote: > > > > > >> > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] > > >> > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:06 PM > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:15:56 -0500 Rivera Jose-B46482 > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] > > >> > > > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:34 PM > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:06:11 -0500 Rivera Jose-B46482 > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com] > > >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:53 PM > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:45:45 -0700 York Sun > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From: "J. German Rivera" > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Changed MC firmware loading to comply with the new MC > > >> > > > > > > boot > > >> > > > > > architecture. > > >> > > > > > > Flush D-cache hierarchy after loading MC images. Add > > >> > > > > > > environment variables "mcboottimeout" for MC boot > > >> > > > > > > timeout in milliseconds, "mcmemsize" for MC DRAM block > > >> > > > > > > size. Check MC boot status before calling flib > functions. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can we just assign actual and/or optimal values for > > >> > 'mcboottimeout' > > >> > > > > > and 'mcmemsize' instead of making them environment > variables? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Having environment variables gives us the flexibility if > > >> > > > > these values need to be changed for a given customer > > >> > > > > configuration. The actual > > >> > > > > > >> > > > what defines a 'customer configuration,' and how does that > > >> > > > manifest itself at u-boot boot time? > > >> > > A DPL (data path layout - a device-tree-like structure > > >> > > describing The > > >> > > DPAA2 objects created at boot time and their connections) > > >> > > > > >> > > > Is it the amount of time it takes to load (and execute?) > firmare? > > >> > > Yes, bigger DPLs take longer to process by the MC. > > >> > >
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware loading for new boot architecture
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:06 PM
> To: Rivera Jose-B46482
> Cc: Sun York-R58495; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware
> loading for new boot architecture
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:15:56 -0500
> Rivera Jose-B46482 wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:34 PM
> > > To: Rivera Jose-B46482
> > > Cc: Sun York-R58495; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> > > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC
> > > firmware loading for new boot architecture
> > >
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:06:11 -0500
> > > Rivera Jose-B46482 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:53 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:45:45 -0700 York Sun
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: "J. German Rivera"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changed MC firmware loading to comply with the new MC boot
> > > > > architecture.
> > > > > > Flush D-cache hierarchy after loading MC images. Add
> > > > > > environment variables "mcboottimeout" for MC boot timeout in
> > > > > > milliseconds, "mcmemsize" for MC DRAM block size. Check MC
> > > > > > boot status before calling flib functions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we just assign actual and/or optimal values for
> 'mcboottimeout'
> > > > > and 'mcmemsize' instead of making them environment variables?
> > > > >
> > > > Having environment variables gives us the flexibility if these
> > > > values need to be changed for a given customer configuration. The
> > > > actual
> > >
> > > what defines a 'customer configuration,' and how does that manifest
> > > itself at u-boot boot time?
> > A DPL (data path layout - a device-tree-like structure describing The
> > DPAA2 objects created at boot time and their connections)
> >
> > > Is it the amount of time it takes to load (and execute?) firmare?
> > Yes, bigger DPLs take longer to process by the MC.
> >
> > > Why isn't customer-specific firmware being loaded via linux? All
> > > u-boot needs is basic networking, pretty static
> > > setup: fixed numbers for both memsize & timeout.
> > This is not customer-specific firmware. What is customer-specific is
> just the DPL.
> > In order to have networking in u-boot, we need to load the MC firmware
> > in u-boot, For cases in which the target system has only DPAA2-based
> network interfaces.
>
> ok, for that case, when time comes for u-boot to do some DPAA2 networking
> arrives (i.e., we shouldn't have to be loading firmware at board boot-
> time), then we should load a minimal DPL for the number of singular, non-
> virtual/switch, etc., interfaces for that board just to tftp: this
> shouldn't be a big DPL at all, and its time complexity is fixed.
>
It is up to the customer to decide what kind of DPL they want to have.
> > > > boot time of the MC and the amount of memory needed by the MC is
> > > > dependent on how big/complex is the DPL used. Also, the memory
> > > > needed by the MC needs to account for how much memory is needed
> > > > for AIOP programs, which may depend on how big/complex they are.
> > >
> > > ok, that helps (modulo not knowing what 'DPL' is), but still, the
> > > massive customer configurations should be being loaded via linux'
> > > firmware loading infrastructure: u-boot should be using a static
> > > image for u-boot's needs.
> > >
> > > > > > +static int wait_for_mc(bool booting_mc, u32 *final_reg_gsr) {
> > > > > > + u32 reg_gsr;
> > > > > > + u32 mc_fw_boot_status;
> > > > > > + unsigned long timeout_ms = get_mc_boot_timeout_ms();
> > > > > > + struct mc_ccsr_registers __iomem *mc_ccsr_regs =
> > > > > > +MC_CCSR_BASE_ADDR;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + dmb();
> > > > > > + debug("Polling mc_ccsr_regs->reg_gsr ...\n");
> > > > > > + assert(timeout_ms > 0);
> > > > > > + for (;;) {
> > > > > > + udelay(1000); /* throttle polling */
> > > > >
> > > > > does this really need to be a whole 1ms?
> > > >
> > > > It is unlikely that the MC fw will boot in less than 1 ms.
> > >
> > > is wait_for_mc() only called for the boot command, or all commands?
>
> I see: there's a udelay(500) in mc_send_command(), which is too high,
> too, IMO, but I'm not that familiar with the h/w: How long does the
> shortest command take?
>
> > > > So, checking more frequently than 1 ms is not necessary.
> > >
> > > yes it is, because e.g., if it takes 1.1ms we will have wasted 0.9ms
> > > on this.
> > >
> > How significant is to save 0.9ms of the whole boot time?
>
> Why waste 0.9ms of boot time when there's no need? It already takes the
> boards *way* too long to boot, and now I'm understanding
> mc_send_command's delay should probably be adjusted, too.
>
I have not heard any complain about RDB/QDS boards taking too long to boot
Due to this "w
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware loading for new boot architecture
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:53 PM
> To: Sun York-R58495
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Rivera Jose-B46482
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware
> loading for new boot architecture
>
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:45:45 -0700
> York Sun wrote:
>
> > From: "J. German Rivera"
> >
> > Changed MC firmware loading to comply with the new MC boot
> architecture.
> > Flush D-cache hierarchy after loading MC images. Add environment
> > variables "mcboottimeout" for MC boot timeout in milliseconds,
> > "mcmemsize" for MC DRAM block size. Check MC boot status before
> > calling flib functions.
>
> Can we just assign actual and/or optimal values for 'mcboottimeout'
> and 'mcmemsize' instead of making them environment variables?
>
Having environment variables gives us the flexibility if these
values need to be changed for a given customer configuration. The actual
boot time of the MC and the amount of memory needed by the MC is dependent
on how big/complex is the DPL used. Also, the memory needed by the MC
needs to account for how much memory is needed for AIOP programs,
which may depend on how big/complex they are.
> > +static int wait_for_mc(bool booting_mc, u32 *final_reg_gsr) {
> > + u32 reg_gsr;
> > + u32 mc_fw_boot_status;
> > + unsigned long timeout_ms = get_mc_boot_timeout_ms();
> > + struct mc_ccsr_registers __iomem *mc_ccsr_regs = MC_CCSR_BASE_ADDR;
> > +
> > + dmb();
> > + debug("Polling mc_ccsr_regs->reg_gsr ...\n");
> > + assert(timeout_ms > 0);
> > + for (;;) {
> > + udelay(1000); /* throttle polling */
>
> does this really need to be a whole 1ms?
It is unlikely that the MC fw will boot in less than 1 ms.
So, checking more frequently than 1 ms is not necessary.
>
> > @@ -318,14 +545,28 @@ int get_mc_boot_status(void)
> >
> > /**
> > * Return the actual size of the MC private DRAM block.
> > - *
> > - * NOTE: For now this function always returns the minimum required
> > size,
> > - * However, in the future, the actual size may be obtained from an
> > environment
> > - * variable.
> > */
>
> why?
>
See answer above.
German
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware loading for new boot architecture
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 3:34 PM
> To: Rivera Jose-B46482
> Cc: Sun York-R58495; u-boot@lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 14/28] drivers/fsl-mc: Changed MC firmware
> loading for new boot architecture
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:06:11 -0500
> Rivera Jose-B46482 wrote:
>
> > > From: Kim Phillips [mailto:kim.phill...@freescale.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:53 PM
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:45:45 -0700
> > > York Sun wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "J. German Rivera"
> > > >
> > > > Changed MC firmware loading to comply with the new MC boot
> > > architecture.
> > > > Flush D-cache hierarchy after loading MC images. Add environment
> > > > variables "mcboottimeout" for MC boot timeout in milliseconds,
> > > > "mcmemsize" for MC DRAM block size. Check MC boot status before
> > > > calling flib functions.
> > >
> > > Can we just assign actual and/or optimal values for 'mcboottimeout'
> > > and 'mcmemsize' instead of making them environment variables?
> > >
> > Having environment variables gives us the flexibility if these values
> > need to be changed for a given customer configuration. The actual
>
> what defines a 'customer configuration,' and how does that manifest
> itself at u-boot boot time?
A DPL (data path layout - a device-tree-like structure describing
The DPAA2 objects created at boot time and their connections)
> Is it the amount of time it takes to load
> (and execute?) firmare?
Yes, bigger DPLs take longer to process by the MC.
> Why isn't customer-specific firmware being
> loaded via linux? All u-boot needs is basic networking, pretty static
> setup: fixed numbers for both memsize & timeout.
This is not customer-specific firmware. What is customer-specific is just the
DPL.
In order to have networking in u-boot, we need to load the MC firmware in
u-boot,
For cases in which the target system has only DPAA2-based network interfaces.
>
> > boot time of the MC and the amount of memory needed by the MC is
> > dependent on how big/complex is the DPL used. Also, the memory needed
> > by the MC needs to account for how much memory is needed for AIOP
> > programs, which may depend on how big/complex they are.
>
> ok, that helps (modulo not knowing what 'DPL' is), but still, the massive
> customer configurations should be being loaded via linux'
> firmware loading infrastructure: u-boot should be using a static image
> for u-boot's needs.
>
> > > > +static int wait_for_mc(bool booting_mc, u32 *final_reg_gsr) {
> > > > + u32 reg_gsr;
> > > > + u32 mc_fw_boot_status;
> > > > + unsigned long timeout_ms = get_mc_boot_timeout_ms();
> > > > + struct mc_ccsr_registers __iomem *mc_ccsr_regs =
> > > > +MC_CCSR_BASE_ADDR;
> > > > +
> > > > + dmb();
> > > > + debug("Polling mc_ccsr_regs->reg_gsr ...\n");
> > > > + assert(timeout_ms > 0);
> > > > + for (;;) {
> > > > + udelay(1000); /* throttle polling */
> > >
> > > does this really need to be a whole 1ms?
> >
> > It is unlikely that the MC fw will boot in less than 1 ms.
>
> is wait_for_mc() only called for the boot command, or all commands?
>
> > So, checking more frequently than 1 ms is not necessary.
>
> yes it is, because e.g., if it takes 1.1ms we will have wasted 0.9ms on
> this.
>
How significant is to save 0.9ms of the whole boot time?
As the comment in the code says, the intent was to throttle down the polling,
to reduce traffic on the system bus due to polling. This traffic competes with
the MC itself accessing the system bus, as it boots. Having the polling traffic
get
in the way of the MC traffic may increase the MC boot time. Too small delay
between polls may cause the MC boot time to increase more than the .9ms you
are concerned of wasting in the delay.
What value would you suggest to use for the delay instead 1000ms?
> Kim
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [Patch v8 4/5] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Add support to load and start MC Firmware
The "uname == NULL" check can be removed.
Thanks,
German
From: Sun York-R58495
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Jeroen Hofstee; Rivera Jose-B46482
Cc: albert.u.b...@aribaud.net; Kanetkar Shruti-B44454; u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [Patch v8 4/5] armv8/fsl-lsch3: Add support to load and
start MC Firmware
On 06/20/2014 01:33 PM, Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> Hi York,
>
> On 20-06-14 20:46, York Sun wrote:
>> From: "J. German Rivera"
>>
>> Adding support to load and start the Layerscape Management Complex (MC)
>> firmware. First, the MC GCR register is set to 0 to reset all cores. MC
>> firmware and DPL images are copied from their location in NOR flash to
>> DDR. MC registers are updated with the location of these images.
>> Deasserting the reset bit of MC GCR register releases core 0 to run.
>> Core 1 will be released by MC firmware. Stop bits are not touched for
>> this step. U-boot waits for MC until it boots up. In case of a failure,
>> device tree is updated accordingly. The MC firmware image uses FIT format.
>>
>>
>> +int parse_mc_firmware_fit_image(const void **raw_image_addr,
>> +size_t *raw_image_size)
>> +{
>> +int format;
>> +void *fit_hdr;
>> +int node_offset;
>> +const void *data;
>> +size_t size;
>> +const char *uname = "firmware";
>> +
>> +/* Check if the image is in NOR flash*/
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_LS_MC_FW_IN_NOR
>> +fit_hdr = (void *)CONFIG_SYS_LS_MC_FW_ADDR;
>> +#else
>> +#error "No CONFIG_SYS_LS_MC_FW_IN_xxx defined"
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +/* Check if Image is in FIT format */
>> +format = genimg_get_format(fit_hdr);
>> +
>> +if (format != IMAGE_FORMAT_FIT) {
>> +debug("Not a FIT image\n");
>> +return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +if (!fit_check_format(fit_hdr)) {
>> +debug("Bad FIT image format\n");
>> +return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Find node offset of MC Firmware image */
>> +if (uname == NULL) {
>> +debug("FIT subimage unit name not provided");
>> +return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>
> I don't see how uname can ever be NULL here, since it is
> assigned above.
>
Good question. I think German has a plan to use different name. I will let him
comment.
York
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
