Hi A.S

-----Original Message-----
From: A.s. Dong
Sent: 2018?7?11? 15:30
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; dongas86 at gmail.com; Jassi Brar
[off-list ref]; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Oleksij Rempel
[off-list ref]; dl-linux-imx [off-list ref];
kernel at pengutronix.de; Fabio Estevam [off-list ref];
shawnguo at kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH V4 3/5] mailbox: imx: add imx mu support

Hi Sascha,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Sascha Hauer [mailto:s.hauer at pengutronix.de]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:20 PM
To: A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; dongas86 at gmail.com; Jassi
Brar [off-list ref]; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Oleksij
Rempel [off-list ref]; dl-linux-imx [off-list ref];
kernel at pengutronix.de; Fabio Estevam [off-list ref];
shawnguo at kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] mailbox: imx: add imx mu support

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 08, 2018 at 10:56:55PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote:

quoted

This is used for i.MX multi core communication.
e.g. A core to SCU firmware(M core) on MX8.

Tx is using polling mode while Rx is interrupt driven and schedule a
hrtimer to receive remain words if have more than
4 words.

You told us that using interrupts is not possible due to miserable
performance, we then provided you a way with which you could poll.
Why are you using interrupts now?

Because mailbox framework does not support sync rx now, I think we do not
need to wait for that feature done first as it's independent and  separate
features of framework.

So for now, we're just using the common way in kernel as arm scpi and ti sci.
When framework supports it, we can easily switch to it.

I optimized the performance a bit by removing the unnecessary memcopy
between tx/tx messages. The test result of booting time shows there's no
obvious regressions. I'm not sure whether it's due to we're booting a minimum
system or the extra cost is very minor to be noticed due to not too much cmds
sent during booting.
(Copy Peng to comments more as he tried and reported that performance drop
with vendor tree)

The txpoll_period is set 1, the minimum is 1ms. So it introduces latency in the initial mailbox
for SCU communication.

Regards,
Peng

From the time measurement of sc_call_rpc, we can see that most rpc command
In polling mode can finish within 10us and very rare ones over 20us.
If switched to irq mode, those 10us cmds will change to about 20us.

But the overall booting time did not increase much. Maybe the irq mode also
saves some CPU MIPS to execute other works in parallel?

quoted

We also suggested a way how the SCU mode could be integrated into the
generic MU support driver Oleksij posted and now you send a driver
which uses the same name as Oleksijs driver, but it only and
exclusively works in SCU mode. This doesn't bring us forward.

Can Oleksij's patch be implemented against this one?
As I remember you said we've still not determined whether Oleksij's approach is
the most suitable way and it's still under discussion.
(Actually TI's approach looks better which is more simiar as SCU way?)

Furthermore, from this patch, you will notice that Oleksij's patch almost did not
work for SCU at all. I have to totally rewrite one for SCU.
So I did not write against his patch as it does not help.
And Oleksij's patch is quite simple while the SCU one is much complicated than
his one. So we probably better get SCU done first.

quoted

We suggested a binding that allows coexisting of the SCU mode and the
generic mode of the MU by putting the mode information into the second
mbox-cell. Why don't you use this?

You mean this?
+#define IMX_MU_CHANNEL0		0
+#define IMX_MU_CHANNEL1		1
+#define IMX_MU_CHANNEL2		2
+#define IMX_MU_CHANNEL3		3
+#define IMX_MU_CHANNEL_IMX8_SCU 4

It's hard for me to believe it's correct and it's over abstract to HW.
So I thought using mbox-cells to distinguish seems to be better.

quoted

I don't think it's necessary to rewrite Oleksijs driver, instead it
should rather be extended with the code I already provided as an
example. With that we could make both of us happy since we can both
have a suitable driver and even share most of the MU code.

As I said above, I even can't reuse 90%+ code of Oleksijs driver. So I can't see the
meaning to demo the code on top of this driver. We can review the SCU
implementation directly with this driver which is more easy.
Then we can decide how to merge them together.

Regards
Dong Aisheng

quoted

Regards,
Sascha

--
Pengutronix e.K.                           |

|

quoted

Industrial Linux Solutions                 |
https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fww
w.pengutronix.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caisheng.dong%40nxp.com%7

Cb359a3eddee54bf1b40a08d5e6702f22%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301

quoted

635%7C0%7C0%7C636668291863846639&sdata=hSucaLRfCB1j1McwlfO%

quoted

2FL0921QXiHg68sl%2B23CvEp4Q%3D&reserved=0  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0

|

quoted

Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:

+49-5121-206917-5555 |