Hi Michal,
Am 24.04.2023 um 15:43 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/21/23 13:39, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Am 21.04.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/21/23 11:56, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Michal,
Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Michal,
Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek:
Hi,
On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Michal,
Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<stefan.herbrechtsme...@weidmueller.com>
Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No
permission to
change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is
used to
detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be
skipped.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<stefan.herbrechtsme...@weidmueller.com>
---
drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int
zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void
*cfg_obj, size_t size)
err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION,
(u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0,
0, ret_payload);
if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) {
- if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] ==
NODE_OCM_BANK_0) {
+ if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] !=
NODE_OCM_BANK_0) {
printf("PMUFW: No permission to
change
config object\n");
return err;
}
First of all we should very likely create a macro for
NODE_OCM_BANK_0
to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different
locations
which have to match.
Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro.
The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part
of this
patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior.
The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is
intended.
The message should be printed if you don’t heave the
permission for a
specific config object and not if the driver checks for
support of
config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if
load of
config objects is supported.
And changes in 2/2 makes sense.
I would be even fine to move skip_config out of
zynqmp_pmufw_node()
The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the
skip_config variable is static inside the function.
and setting up skip_config value directly in
zynqmp_power_probe() not
to check in every call.
We still need to check the skip_config variable inside
zynqmp_pmufw_node
to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't
support it.
85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id ==
NODE_OCM_BANK_0)
86 skip_config = true;
Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that
skip_config
is configured and checked only once at probe time.
What do you think?
Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary?
Could we
use a debug instead?
It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work.
Is this information really necessary for a production build?
For production build no. But there are other messages which are
likely not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one
version) for example.
Could we use log_info instead of printf?
That should be fine that you can filter it out if you like.
It means having information in boot log is quite worth.
Either we should print a message in any case or only if the
feature is
disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop.
By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build.
I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only
once, disabled or enabled.
Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for
the other platforms?
Not sure what you mean by other platforms.
If you mean different xilinx SoCs then no.
If you mean other then SOM. You can enable that feature and use it
but it is only tested and enabled by default on SOMs.
I was confused by the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)`. Why is this
needed?
Because driver is used by other Xilinx/AMD SOCs but pmufw is only
ZynqMP specific firmware. Newer one are using PLM.
The source file contains two drivers:
- zynqmp_firmware
- zynqmp_power
Isn't the zynqmp_power driver zynqmp specific and thereby the
zynqmp_power_probe function which contains the
`IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)` check?
Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be
able
to use it in scripts.
Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that
config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now
you can
do it via command).
Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by
default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just
change the
name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section.
The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by
the
probe as first user.
It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you
can disable power domain driver and then first call can be via
command.
We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms
to enable / disable the feature.
as above. Please explain what you mean by all platforms.
And it is called from probe() already.
The problem is that this driver doesn't really follow the driver
model and is hard to understand. Other drivers requires an udevice
for its functions. In this case the uclass_get_device_by_phandle()
will ensure that the driver is probed or a failure is returned.
Not quite sure I am following you.
zynqmp_power_domain is bind from zynqmp-firmware bind method.
And both of these drivers are based on driver model.
I mean the exported functions like zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object().
This function calls xilinx_pm_request() which calls ipi_req() which
calls do_pm_probe() if the global data isn't initialized. I think a
cleaner solution would be if the ipi_req functions required the udevice
as parameter and the xilinx_pm_request function would call the
uclass_get_device_by_driver to get the udevice. This would also
eliminate the global data in the driver.
Maybe even the zynqmp_pmufw_node() function should require an udevice
because this is already described in the device tree and struct
power_domain and makes clear that this functions requires a probed
zynqmp_power driver.
At the moment you have to analyses the whole driver code to understand
that a first call of zynqmp_pmufw_node() will probe the zynqmp_power
driver via zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object() --> xilinx_pm_request() -->
ipi_req() --> do_pm_probe() only if the CONFIG_ZYNQMP_IPI is enabled in
SPL or EL 3. Otherwise the xilinx_pm_request() will use smc_call() or
failed.
This means that after your change the zynqmp_pmufw_node() function
content will only be skipped if IPI is enabled and we are in SPL or EL 3.
Regards
Stefan
