Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] bus: mhi: core: Introduce internal register poll helper function

[Jeffrey Hugo]

On 3/11/2021 1:00 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
> Hi Bhaumik,
>
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 00:31, Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Introduce helper function to allow MHI core driver to poll for
> > a value in a register field. This helps reach a common path to
> > read and poll register values along with a retry time interval.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/bus/mhi/core/internal.h |  3 +++
> >   drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c     | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/internal.h b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/internal.h
> > index 6f80ec3..005286b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/internal.h
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/internal.h
> > @@ -643,6 +643,9 @@ int __must_check mhi_read_reg(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> >   int __must_check mhi_read_reg_field(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> >                                      void __iomem *base, u32 offset, u32 mask,
> >                                      u32 shift, u32 *out);
> > +int __must_check mhi_poll_reg_field(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> > +                                   void __iomem *base, u32 offset, u32 mask,
> > +                                   u32 shift, u32 val, u32 delayus);
> >   void mhi_write_reg(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, void __iomem *base,
> >                     u32 offset, u32 val);
> >   void mhi_write_reg_field(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl, void __iomem *base,
> > diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c
> > index 4e0131b..7c7f41a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/core/main.c
> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> >    *
> >    */
> >
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> >   #include <linux/device.h>
> >   #include <linux/dma-direction.h>
> >   #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> > @@ -37,6 +38,28 @@ int __must_check mhi_read_reg_field(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> >          return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > +int __must_check mhi_poll_reg_field(struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl,
> > +                                   void __iomem *base, u32 offset,
> > +                                   u32 mask, u32 shift, u32 val, u32 delayus)
> > +{
> > +       int ret;
> > +       u32 out, retry = (mhi_cntrl->timeout_ms * 1000) / delayus;
> > +
> > +       while (retry--) {
> > +               ret = mhi_read_reg_field(mhi_cntrl, base, offset, mask, shift,
> > +                                        &out);
> > +               if (ret)
> > +                       return ret;
> > +
> > +               if (out == val)
> > +                       return 0;
> > +
> > +               udelay(delayus);
>
> Have you read my previous comment?
> Do you really want to risk hogging the CPU for several seconds? we
> know that some devices take several seconds to start/boot.
> Why not using msleep variant here?

usleep_range() if there is a desire to stay in us units?

Given that the use of this function is for 25ms in one case, I wonder if 
this warning is applicable:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/delay.h#L28

Counter point, 1ms latency over PCIe is not unusual.  I know we've 
removed the PCIe dependencies from MHI, but PCIe is the real usecase at 
this time.  Seems like this function could behave a bit weird if the 
parameter to udelay is something like "100", but the 
mhi_read_reg_field() call takes significantly longer than that.  Feels 
like in some scenarios, we could actually exceed the timeout by a 
non-trivial margin.

I guess I'm going back and forth in determining if us scale timing is a 
benefit in any way.

--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.