diff mbox series

[net-next,v2,2/2] net: stmmac: Support enhanced addressing mode for DWMAC 4.10

Message ID 20190909152546.383-2-thierry.reding@gmail.com
State Superseded
Headers show
Series [net-next,v2,1/2] net: stmmac: Only enable enhanced addressing mode when needed | expand

Commit Message

Thierry Reding Sept. 9, 2019, 3:25 p.m. UTC 
From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>

The address width of the controller can be read from hardware feature
registers much like on XGMAC. Add support for parsing the ADDR64 field
so that the DMA mask can be set accordingly.

This avoids getting swiotlb involved for DMA on Tegra186 and later.

Also make sure that the upper 32 bits of the DMA address are written to
the DMA descriptors when enhanced addressing mode is used. Similarily,
for each channel, the upper 32 bits of the DMA descriptor ring's base
address also need to be programmed to make sure the correct memory can
be fetched when the DMA descriptor ring is located beyond the 32-bit
boundary.

Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- also program the upper 32 bits of the DMA descriptor base address for
  each channel

 drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4.h  |  1 +
 .../ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c    |  4 +--
 .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.c  | 28 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.h  |  3 ++
 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Jose Abreu Sept. 9, 2019, 4:05 p.m. UTC | #1 
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:46 (UTC+00:00)

> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
>  	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
>  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
>  
> +	if (dma_cfg->eame)

There is no need for this check. If EAME is not enabled then upper 32 
bits will be zero.

> +		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_rx_phy),
> +		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
> +
>  	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_rx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
>  }

> @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_tx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
>  
>  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_CONTROL(chan));
>  
> +	if (dma_cfg->eame)

Same here.

> +		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_tx_phy),
> +		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
> +
>  	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_tx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
>  }

Also, please provide a cover letter in next submission.

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
Thierry Reding Sept. 9, 2019, 7:13 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:05:52PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:46 (UTC+00:00)
> 
> > @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> >  	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
> >  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
> >  
> > +	if (dma_cfg->eame)
> 
> There is no need for this check. If EAME is not enabled then upper 32 
> bits will be zero.

The idea here was to potentially guard against this register not being
available on some revisions. Having the check here would avoid access to
the register if the device doesn't support enhanced addressing.

> 
> > +		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_rx_phy),
> > +		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
> > +
> >  	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_rx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
> >  }
> 
> > @@ -97,6 +101,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_tx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> >  
> >  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_CONTROL(chan));
> >  
> > +	if (dma_cfg->eame)
> 
> Same here.
> 
> > +		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_tx_phy),
> > +		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
> > +
> >  	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_tx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
> >  }
> 
> Also, please provide a cover letter in next submission.

Alright, will do.

Thierry
Jose Abreu Sept. 10, 2019, 8:35 a.m. UTC | #3 
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Date: Sep/09/2019, 20:13:29 (UTC+00:00)

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:05:52PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:46 (UTC+00:00)
> > 
> > > @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> > >  	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
> > >  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
> > >  
> > > +	if (dma_cfg->eame)
> > 
> > There is no need for this check. If EAME is not enabled then upper 32 
> > bits will be zero.
> 
> The idea here was to potentially guard against this register not being
> available on some revisions. Having the check here would avoid access to
> the register if the device doesn't support enhanced addressing.

I see your point but I don't think there will be any problems unless you 
have some strange system that doesn't handle the write accesses to 
unimplemented features properly ...

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
Florian Fainelli Sept. 10, 2019, 7:01 p.m. UTC | #4 
On 9/10/19 1:35 AM, Jose Abreu wrote:
> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> Date: Sep/09/2019, 20:13:29 (UTC+00:00)
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:05:52PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:46 (UTC+00:00)
>>>
>>>> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
>>>>  	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
>>>>  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (dma_cfg->eame)
>>>
>>> There is no need for this check. If EAME is not enabled then upper 32 
>>> bits will be zero.
>>
>> The idea here was to potentially guard against this register not being
>> available on some revisions. Having the check here would avoid access to
>> the register if the device doesn't support enhanced addressing.
> 
> I see your point but I don't think there will be any problems unless you 
> have some strange system that doesn't handle the write accesses to 
> unimplemented features properly ...

Is not it then just safer to not do the write to a register that you do
not know how the implementation is going to respond to with one of a
target abort, timeout, decoding error, just dead lock?

Also, would it make sense to consider adding an #ifdef
CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT plus the conditional check so that you can be
slightly more optimal in the hot-path here?
Jose Abreu Sept. 11, 2019, 9:15 a.m. UTC | #5 
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: Sep/10/2019, 20:01:01 (UTC+00:00)

> On 9/10/19 1:35 AM, Jose Abreu wrote:
> > From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sep/09/2019, 20:13:29 (UTC+00:00)
> > 
> >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:05:52PM +0000, Jose Abreu wrote:
> >>> From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Sep/09/2019, 16:25:46 (UTC+00:00)
> >>>
> >>>> @@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
> >>>>  	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
> >>>>  	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
> >>>>  
> >>>> +	if (dma_cfg->eame)
> >>>
> >>> There is no need for this check. If EAME is not enabled then upper 32 
> >>> bits will be zero.
> >>
> >> The idea here was to potentially guard against this register not being
> >> available on some revisions. Having the check here would avoid access to
> >> the register if the device doesn't support enhanced addressing.
> > 
> > I see your point but I don't think there will be any problems unless you 
> > have some strange system that doesn't handle the write accesses to 
> > unimplemented features properly ...
> 
> Is not it then just safer to not do the write to a register that you do
> not know how the implementation is going to respond to with one of a
> target abort, timeout, decoding error, just dead lock?

I don't think any of these will ever happen. Notice that this is already 
been done for a long time in some registers that may not exist in some 
random HW config and there is also the point that this is a write 
operation so Slave Error would only get triggered if we did a read.

> Also, would it make sense to consider adding an #ifdef
> CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT plus the conditional check so that you can be
> slightly more optimal in the hot-path here?

Well, this is not hot-path. It's only done in HW open sequence. The 
hot-path would be set_{rx/tx}_tail_ptr() but that's 32 bits only. 

---
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4.h
index 2ed11a581d80..f634fa09dffc 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4.h
@@ -183,6 +183,7 @@  enum power_event {
 #define GMAC_HW_HASH_TB_SZ		GENMASK(25, 24)
 #define GMAC_HW_FEAT_AVSEL		BIT(20)
 #define GMAC_HW_TSOEN			BIT(18)
+#define GMAC_HW_ADDR64			GENMASK(15, 14)
 #define GMAC_HW_TXFIFOSIZE		GENMASK(10, 6)
 #define GMAC_HW_RXFIFOSIZE		GENMASK(4, 0)
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
index dbde23e7e169..d546041d2fcd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
@@ -431,8 +431,8 @@  static void dwmac4_get_addr(struct dma_desc *p, unsigned int *addr)
 
 static void dwmac4_set_addr(struct dma_desc *p, dma_addr_t addr)
 {
-	p->des0 = cpu_to_le32(addr);
-	p->des1 = 0;
+	p->des0 = cpu_to_le32(lower_32_bits(addr));
+	p->des1 = cpu_to_le32(upper_32_bits(addr));
 }
 
 static void dwmac4_clear(struct dma_desc *p)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.c
index 3ed5508586ef..e77410f21d7d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.c
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@  static void dwmac4_dma_init_rx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
 	value = value | (rxpbl << DMA_BUS_MODE_RPBL_SHIFT);
 	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(chan));
 
+	if (dma_cfg->eame)
+		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_rx_phy),
+		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
+
 	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_rx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
 }
 
@@ -97,6 +101,10 @@  static void dwmac4_dma_init_tx_chan(void __iomem *ioaddr,
 
 	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_CONTROL(chan));
 
+	if (dma_cfg->eame)
+		writel(upper_32_bits(dma_tx_phy),
+		       ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR_HI(chan));
+
 	writel(lower_32_bits(dma_tx_phy), ioaddr + DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR(chan));
 }
 
@@ -132,6 +140,9 @@  static void dwmac4_dma_init(void __iomem *ioaddr,
 	if (dma_cfg->aal)
 		value |= DMA_SYS_BUS_AAL;
 
+	if (dma_cfg->eame)
+		value |= DMA_SYS_BUS_EAME;
+
 	writel(value, ioaddr + DMA_SYS_BUS_MODE);
 }
 
@@ -354,6 +365,23 @@  static void dwmac4_get_hw_feature(void __iomem *ioaddr,
 	dma_cap->hash_tb_sz = (hw_cap & GMAC_HW_HASH_TB_SZ) >> 24;
 	dma_cap->av = (hw_cap & GMAC_HW_FEAT_AVSEL) >> 20;
 	dma_cap->tsoen = (hw_cap & GMAC_HW_TSOEN) >> 18;
+
+	dma_cap->addr64 = (hw_cap & GMAC_HW_ADDR64) >> 14;
+	switch (dma_cap->addr64) {
+	case 0:
+		dma_cap->addr64 = 32;
+		break;
+	case 1:
+		dma_cap->addr64 = 40;
+		break;
+	case 2:
+		dma_cap->addr64 = 48;
+		break;
+	default:
+		dma_cap->addr64 = 32;
+		break;
+	}
+
 	/* RX and TX FIFO sizes are encoded as log2(n / 128). Undo that by
 	 * shifting and store the sizes in bytes.
 	 */
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.h
index b66da0237d2a..5299fa1001a3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_dma.h
@@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ 
 #define DMA_SYS_BUS_MB			BIT(14)
 #define DMA_AXI_1KBBE			BIT(13)
 #define DMA_SYS_BUS_AAL			BIT(12)
+#define DMA_SYS_BUS_EAME		BIT(11)
 #define DMA_AXI_BLEN256			BIT(7)
 #define DMA_AXI_BLEN128			BIT(6)
 #define DMA_AXI_BLEN64			BIT(5)
@@ -91,7 +92,9 @@ 
 #define DMA_CHAN_CONTROL(x)		DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x)
 #define DMA_CHAN_TX_CONTROL(x)		(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x4)
 #define DMA_CHAN_RX_CONTROL(x)		(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x8)
+#define DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR_HI(x)	(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x10)
 #define DMA_CHAN_TX_BASE_ADDR(x)	(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x14)
+#define DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR_HI(x)	(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x18)
 #define DMA_CHAN_RX_BASE_ADDR(x)	(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x1c)
 #define DMA_CHAN_TX_END_ADDR(x)		(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x20)
 #define DMA_CHAN_RX_END_ADDR(x)		(DMA_CHANX_BASE_ADDR(x) + 0x28)