Hi Simon, On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:45:58PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 at 20:04, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 11:35:49AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 at 03:35, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 02:30:57PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 01:57, AKASHI Takahiro > > > > > <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:09:58PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi AKASHI, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 01:49, AKASHI Takahiro > > > > > > > <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Added is a new unit test for SCMI base protocol, which will > > > > > > > > exercise all > > > > > > > > the commands provided by the protocol, except > > > > > > > > SCMI_BASE_NOTIFY_ERRORS. > > > > > > > > $ ut dm scmi_base > > > > > > > > It is assumed that test.dtb is used as sandbox's device tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > test/dm/scmi.c | 112 > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 112 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/test/dm/scmi.c b/test/dm/scmi.c > > > > > > > > index 881be3171b7c..563017bb63e0 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/test/dm/scmi.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/test/dm/scmi.c > > > > > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ > > > > > > > > #include <clk.h> > > > > > > > > #include <dm.h> > > > > > > > > #include <reset.h> > > > > > > > > +#include <scmi_agent.h> > > > > > > > > +#include <scmi_agent-uclass.h> > > > > > > > > +#include <scmi_protocols.h> > > > > > > > > #include <asm/scmi_test.h> > > > > > > > > #include <dm/device-internal.h> > > > > > > > > #include <dm/test.h> > > > > > > > > @@ -95,6 +98,115 @@ static int > > > > > > > > dm_test_scmi_sandbox_agent(struct unit_test_state *uts) > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > DM_TEST(dm_test_scmi_sandbox_agent, UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static int dm_test_scmi_base(struct unit_test_state *uts) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + struct udevice *agent_dev, *base; > > > > > > > > + struct scmi_agent_priv *priv; > > > > > > > > + const struct scmi_base_ops *ops; > > > > > > > > + u32 version, num_agents, num_protocols, impl_version; > > > > > > > > + u32 attributes, agent_id; > > > > > > > > + char vendor[SCMI_BASE_NAME_LENGTH_MAX], > > > > > > > > + agent_name[SCMI_BASE_NAME_LENGTH_MAX]; > > > > > > > > + u8 *protocols; > > > > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + /* preparation */ > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > ut_assertok(uclass_get_device_by_name(UCLASS_SCMI_AGENT, "scmi", > > > > > > > > + &agent_dev)); > > > > > > > > + ut_assertnonnull(agent_dev); > > > > > > > > + ut_assertnonnull(priv = dev_get_uclass_plat(agent_dev)); > > > > > > > > + ut_assertnonnull(base = scmi_get_protocol(agent_dev, > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > SCMI_PROTOCOL_ID_BASE)); > > > > > > > > + ut_assertnonnull(ops = dev_get_driver_ops(base)); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + /* version */ > > > > > > > > + ret = (*ops->protocol_version)(base, &version); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you add uclass helpers to call each of the methods? That is > > > > > > > how it > > > > > > > is commonly done. You should not be calling ops->xxx directly > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I will add inline functions instead. > > > > > > > > > > I don't mean inline...see all the other uclasses which define a > > > > > > > > Okay, I will *real* functions. > > > > > > > > > function which is implemented in the uclass. It is confusing when one > > > > > uclass does something different. People might copy this style and then > > > > > the code base diverges. Did you not notice this when looking around > > > > > the source tree? > > > > > > > > But one concern came up in my mind. > > > > Contrary to ordinary "device controllers", there exists only a single > > > > implementation of driver for each of "udevice"'s associated with SCMI > > > > protocols including the base protocol. > > > > > > > > So if I follow your suggestion, the code (base.c) might look like: > > > > === > > > > static int __scmi_base_discover_vendor(struct udevice *dev, u8 *vendor) > > > > { > > > > ... > > > > } > > > > > > > > struct scmi_base_ops scmi_base_ops = { > > > > > > > > .base_discover_vendor = __scmi_base_discover_vendor, > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > int scmi_base_discover_vendor(struct udevice *dev, u8 *vendor) > > > > { > > > > struct scmi_base_ops *ops; > > > > > > > > ops = scmi_base_dev_ops(dev); > > > > > > > > return ops->base_discover_vendor(dev, vendor); > > > > } > > > > === > > > > > > > > We will have to have similar definitions for every operation in ops. > > > > It looks quite weird to me as there are always pairs of functions, > > > > like __scmi_base_discover_vendor() and scmi_base_discover_vendor(). > > > > > > Yes I understand that you only have one driver at present. Is there > > > not a sandbox driver? > > > > No. > > Please remember that SCMI protocol drivers on U-Boot are nothing but > > stubs that makes a call to SCMI servers, supporting common communication > > channel interfaces for different transports (either OP-TEE, SMCCC or > > mailbox). > > > > Sandbox driver, if is properly named, is also implemented as a sort of > > transport layer, where a invocation is replaced with a function call which > > mimicks one of specific commands in SCMI protocol on behalf of a real SCMI > > server. > > > > In this sense, there will exist only a single driver under the current > > form of framework forever. > > OK, so driver model is used for the transport but not the top-level > driver? I see.
I'm not sure if you fully understand. Yes, transports, or interchangeably named as a channel, are modeled as U-Boot devices as you see in drivers/firmware/scmi/*_agent.c (Their names, *_agent, are misleading in my opinion as their functionality is purely a transport method to SCMI server. An agent means, in SCMI jargon, a user or client of SCMI server.) On top of that, each SCMI protocol, the base protocol in my patch set, is also modeled as a U-Boot device. You can see another example, say, in drivers/firmware/clk/clk_scmi.c. Since there is no corresponding uclass for the base protocol, I create a new one (UCLASS_SCMI_BASE) even though it may not be seen an concrete device object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can avoid this redundant code easily by eliminating "ops" > > > > abstraction. > > > > But as far as I remember, you insist that every driver that complies > > > > to U-Boot driver model should have a "ops". > > > > > > > > What do you make of this? > > > > > > Well there are some exceptions, but yes that is the idea. Operations > > > should be in a 'ops' struct and documented and implemented in a > > > consistent way. > > > > Is it your choice that I should keep "ops" structure in this specific > > implementation? > > I can't actually find this patch on patchwork. Indeed (why?), but you have already seen it. https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-June/521288.html > But yes, you do need a function for each ops call. They should be used > in the tests, which should not directly call functions using > ops->xxx() Even though there is no practical benefit to do so. Right? -Takahiro Akashi > > Regards, > Simon