> -----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 <german.riv...@freescale.com> 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 <german.riv...@freescale.com> 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
> > > > > <york...@freescale.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: "J. German Rivera" <german.riv...@freescale.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 "wasteds 0.9ms".
Can you support your statement about LS2 RDB/QDS boards taking too long to boot
with actual numbers? Otherwise, I will not make any change.
> > 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?
>
> I don't know MC h/w: what's the shortest boot time given a standard
> simple "DPL"?: A small fraction of that.
>
I will not make any change at this time as there is no evidence that
this optimization is actually needed.
> Kim
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
