Re: [RFC] Integrate RPMSG/SMD into WWAN subsystem

Hi Stephan,

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 at 11:25, Stephan Gerhold [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Loic,

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 11:11:45PM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 20:20, Stephan Gerhold [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I've been thinking about creating some sort of "RPMSG" driver for the
new WWAN subsystem; this would be used as a QMI/AT channel to the
integrated modem on some older Qualcomm SoCs such as MSM8916 and MSM8974.

It's easy to confuse all the different approaches that Qualcomm has to
talk to their modems, so I will first try to briefly give an overview
about those that I'm familiar with:

---
There is USB and MHI that are mainly used to talk to "external" modems.

For the integrated modems in many Qualcomm SoCs there is typically
a separate control and data path. They are not really related to each
other (e.g. currently no common parent device in sysfs).

For the data path (network interface) there is "IPA" (drivers/net/ipa)
on newer SoCs or "BAM-DMUX" on some older SoCs (e.g. MSM8916/MSM8974).
I have a driver for BAM-DMUX that I hope to finish up and submit soon.

The connection is set up via QMI. The messages are either sent via
a shared RPMSG channel (net/qrtr sockets in Linux) or via standalone
SMD/RPMSG channels (e.g. "DATA5_CNTL" for QMI and "DATA1" for AT).

This gives a lot of possible combinations like BAM-DMUX+RPMSG
(MSM8916, MSM8974), or IPA+QRTR (SDM845) but also other funny
combinations like IPA+RPMSG (MSM8994) or BAM-DMUX+QRTR (MSM8937).

Simply put, supporting all these in userspace like ModemManager
is a mess (Aleksander can probably confirm).
It would be nice if this could be simplified through the WWAN subsystem.

It's not clear to me if or how well QRTR sockets can be mapped to a char
device for the WWAN subsystem, so for now I'm trying to focus on the
standalone RPMSG approach (for MSM8916, MSM8974, ...).
---

Currently ModemManager uses the RPMSG channels via the rpmsg-chardev
(drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c). It wasn't my idea to use it like this,
I just took that over from someone else. Realistically speaking, the
current approach isn't too different from the UCI "backdoor interface"
approach that was rejected for MHI...

I kind of expected that I can just trivially copy some code from
rpmsg_char.c into a WWAN driver since they both end up as a simple char
device. But it looks like the abstractions in wwan_core are kind of
getting in the way here... As far as I can tell, they don't really fit
together with the RPMSG interface.

For example there is rpmsg_send(...) (blocking) and rpmsg_trysend(...)
(non-blocking) and even a rpmsg_poll(...) [1] but I don't see a way to
get notified when the TX queue is full or no longer full so I can call
wwan_port_txon/off().

Any suggestions or other thoughts?

It would be indeed nice to get this in the WWAN framework.
I don't know much about rpmsg but I think it is straightforward for
the RX path, the ept_cb can simply forward the buffers to
wwan_port_rx.

Right, that part should be straightforward.

quoted

For tx, simply call rpmsg_trysend() in the wwan tx
callback and don't use the txon/off helpers. In short, keep it simple
and check if you observe any issues.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. This sounds like exactly the kind of
thing that might explode later just because I don't manage to get the
TX queue full in my tests. In that case, writing to the WWAN char dev
would not block, even if O_NONBLOCK is not set.

Right, if you think it could be a problem, you can always implement a
more complex solution like calling rpmsg_send from a
workqueue/kthread, and only re-enable tx once rpmsg_send returns.

But I think you're right that it's probably easiest if I start with
that, see if I can get anything working at all ...

quoted

And for sure you can propose changes in the WWAN framework if you
think something is missing to support your specific case.

... and then we can discuss that further on a RFC PATCH or something
like that. Does that sound good to you?

Yes, you can submit the series, no need to be RFC IMHO, this thread is
already your RFC.

Regards,
Loic