[PATCH v8 03/10] arm_ffa: introduce Arm FF-A low-level driver

Wed Jan 18 13:49:23 CET 2023

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 08:51:51PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 5:43 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 19:10, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 1:21 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Abdellatif,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 04:12, Abdellatif El Khlifi
> > > > <abdellatif.elkhlifi at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 09:49:30AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 1:22 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 05:22, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 3:18 PM Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Abdellatif,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 06:21, Abdellatif El Khlifi <abdellatif.elkhlifi at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 07:09:16PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >  should be called 'priov' and should beHi Abdellatif,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * ffa_device_get - create, bind and probe the arm_ffa device
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * @pdev: the address of a device pointer (to be filled when the arm_ffa bus device is created
> > > > > > > > > > > > + *       successfully)
> > > > > > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * This function makes sure the arm_ffa device is
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * created, bound to this driver, probed and ready to use.
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * Arm FF-A transport is implemented through a single U-Boot
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * device managing the FF-A bus (arm_ffa).
> > > > > > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * Return:
> > > > > > > > > > > > + *
> > > > > > > > > > > > + * 0 on success. Otherwise, failure
> > > > > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > > > > +int ffa_device_get(struct udevice **pdev)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > > +       int ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > +       struct udevice *dev = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +       ret = device_bind(dm_root(), DM_DRIVER_GET(arm_ffa), FFA_DRV_NAME, NULL, ofnode_null(),
> > > > > > > > > > > > +                         &dev);
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please add a DT binding. Even if only temporary, we need something for this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to address all the comments.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regarding DT binding and FF-A discovery. We agreed with Linaro and Rob Herring
> > > > > > > > > > about the following:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - DT is only for what we failed to make discoverable. For hardware, we're stuck
> > > > > > > > > >   with it. We shouldn't repeat that for software interfaces. This approach is
> > > > > > > > > >   already applied in the FF-A kernel driver which comes with no DT support and
> > > > > > > > > >   discovers the bus with bus_register() API [1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This may be the UEFI view, but it is not how U-Boot works. This is not something we are 'stuck' with. It is how we define what is present on a device. This is how the PCI bus works in U-Boot. It is best practice in U-Boot to use the device tree to make this things visible and configurable. Unlike with Linux there is no other way to provide configuration needed by these devices.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Where do you get UEFI out of this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I assume it was UEFI as there was no discussion about this in U-Boot.
> > > > > > > Which firmware project was consulted about this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is the discoverability of hardware that is fixed (and we are stuck
> > > > > > > > with). We can't change hardware. The disoverability may be PCI
> > > > > > > > VID/PID, USB device descriptors, or nothing. We only use DT when those
> > > > > > > > are not sufficient. For a software interface, there is no reason to
> > > > > > > > make them non-discoverable as the interface can be fixed (at least for
> > > > > > > > new things like FF-A).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here I am talking about the controller itself, the top-level node in
> > > > > > > the device tree. For PCI this is a device tree node and it should be
> > > > > > > the same here. So I am not saying that the devices on the bus need to
> > > > > > > be in the device tree (that can be optional, but may be useful in some
> > > > > > > situations where it is status and known).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, the PCI host bridges are not discoverable, have a bunch of
> > > > > > resources, and do need to be in DT. The downstream devices only do if
> > > > > > they have extra resources such as when a device is soldered down on a
> > > > > > board rather than a standard slot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We need something like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ff-a {
> > > > > > >     compatible = "something";
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know what mechanism is actually used to communicate with it,
> > > > > > > but that will be enough to get the top-level driver started.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's discovery of FF-A itself and then discovery of FF-A features
> > > > > > (e.g. partitions). Both of those are discoverable without DT. The
> > > > > > first is done by checking the SMCCC version, then checking for FF-A
> > > > > > presence and features. Putting this into DT is redundant. Worse, what
> > > > > > if they disagree?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you agree with Rob, Ilias and myself that it makes more sense
> > > > > FF-A bus is discovered without a DT node and following the same approach as
> > > > > Linux ? (FF-A bus doesn't have a HW controller and is a purely SW bus,
> > > > > no configuration/description needed at DT level).
> > > > >
> > > > > Your suggestions are always welcome.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry I don't agree with that. It does need a compatible string,
> > > > like PCI has. You can just add it in U-Boot if Linux won't accept the
> > > > binding.
> > >
> > > It's not like PCI as the host side of PCI has non-discoverable resources.
> >
> > OK I see. It is certainly an edge case.
> >
> > >
> > > This all could have been designed better, but hindsight is 20/20 and
> > > things evolved step by step. There are a bunch of firmware services
> > > that are all behind SMCCC. The first (upstream) was PSCI. IIRC, SMCCC
> > > was invented a bit after that, but generalized PSCI for other
> > > services. Since then more have been added. More services get added one
> > > by one and yes we added bindings for them. Because what's one more...
> > > But that really needs to stop. We're stuck with h/w that's not
> > > discoverable, there's zero reason to do that with s/w interfaces. If
> > > we could redo everything, we'd have a node for SMCCC and that's it
> > > unless there's h/w resources provided to the rest of DT. But we can't,
> > > so SMCCC is discovered by the presence of PSCI.
> >
> > I understand the background here, but if we don't take a stand on
> > this, this sort of thing will continue.
> 
> I agree completely (but I think what you mean for 'this' is
> different). Using DT for s/w features has to stop.
> 
> Every new SMCCC firmware interface we get a new binding for it. FF-A
> originally had a bunch of crap in the binding. So did Op-tee. Why does
> each new firmware feature need a DT node? As software people, can't we
> design software interfaces which are discoverable on their own rather
> than using a hardware description for discovering them? The only part
> we can't discover is whether we have SMCCC or not, but we already have
> that in DT with the PSCI node because if we have PSCI, we have SMCCC.
> 
> It is the same problem with that UEFI SPI protocol binding on the list
> last week.

I guess the problem comes down to, can we have one discovery method that
everyone shares, or do we have to let everyone invent a new discovery
method every time? FF-A, Op-tee, U-Boot, coreboot, barebox (and
everyone else I'm unintentionally forgetting) could just discover these
things via device tree. Or, we could all write our own code to perform
the discovery.  And when RISC-V comes along with similar functionality,
we could probe their device tree and see they've implemented the same
concept, but a little differently, but still have the discovery portion
be in the device tree. To which it sounds like your answer is "not in
the device tree".

> > Just because something works
> > in Linux does not mean that the binding (or lack of it) is good.
> >
> > The reasons to do this are:
> > - avoids needing to manually call device_bind()
> > - avoids extra plumbing in U-Boot
> > - provides visibility into what is in the system, by looking at the
> > DT, like documentation
> > - DT is how devices are bound in U-Boot
> >
> > You can see the problem if you look at ffa_device_get(). It is called
> > from ffa_bus_discover() which is a new addition into the board_init
> > list. We are trying to remove this list and certainly don't want new
> > things added!!
> 
> That seems less than ideal. How do you init PSCI? Or u-boot doesn't
> touch it? The low-level code for both should be shared if not already.
> 
> > We don't need to change this in the Linux implementation, just add a
> > top-level DT node for U-Boot. I don't understand why that is such a
> > big problem?
> 
> It's a line in the sand. Yeah, 1 compatible is not a big deal, but
> then it is an invitation to add to the binding and add a compatible
> for the next SMCCC firmware feature.

Well, I suppose then that this is not the line in the sand we have to
have a larger debate about. For this, we'll just follow along with
what everyone else has agreed on re bindings, and that just leaves
Simon's other feedback about sandbox testing, etc.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20230118/ba22ee00/attachment.sig>