| Message ID | 20230403133453.21214-1-stefan.herbrechtsmeier-oss@weidmueller.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Michal Simek |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] firmware: zynqmp: Mask expected and show unexpected warning | expand |
On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> > > Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to > change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is used to > detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be skipped. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> > --- > > drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void *cfg_obj, size_t size) > err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, > 0, ret_payload); > if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { > - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { > + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { > printf("PMUFW: No permission to change config object\n"); > return err; > } First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations which have to match. The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. And changes in 2/2 makes sense. I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not to check in every call. 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) 86 skip_config = true; Thanks, Michal
Hi Michal, Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >> >> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is used to >> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be skipped. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >> --- >> >> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >> 0, ret_payload); >> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >> config object\n"); >> return err; >> } > > First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 > to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations > which have to match. Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. > The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this > patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is intended. The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of config objects is supported. > And changes in 2/2 makes sense. > > I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the skip_config variable is static inside the function. > and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not > to check in every call. We still need to check the skip_config variable inside zynqmp_pmufw_node to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. > > 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) > 86 skip_config = true; Regards Stefan
Hi, On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: > >> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>> >>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is used to >>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be skipped. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>> --- >>> >>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>> 0, ret_payload); >>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>> config object\n"); >>> return err; >>> } >> >> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >> which have to match. > > Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. > >> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. > > The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is intended. > The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a > specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of > config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of > config objects is supported. > >> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >> >> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() > > The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the > skip_config variable is static inside the function. > >> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >> to check in every call. > > We still need to check the skip_config variable inside zynqmp_pmufw_node > to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. > >> >> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >> 86 skip_config = true; Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config is configured and checked only once at probe time. What do you think? M diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c index ece00e7958a4..aebb6f6d6d95 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c @@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ static unsigned int xpm_configobject_close[] = { 0U, /* Loading permission to Overlay config object */ }; +static bool skip_config; + int zynqmp_pmufw_config_close(void) { zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject_close, @@ -71,22 +73,14 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_config_close(void) int zynqmp_pmufw_node(u32 id) { - static bool skip_config; - int ret; - if (skip_config) return 0; /* Record power domain id */ xpm_configobject[NODE_ID_LOCATION] = id; - ret = zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject, - sizeof(xpm_configobject)); - - if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE) - skip_config = true; - - return 0; + return zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject, + sizeof(xpm_configobject)); } static int do_pm_probe(void) @@ -251,13 +245,8 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void *cfg_obj, size_t size) err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, 0, ret_payload); - if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE) { - printf("PMUFW: No permission to change config object\n"); - return err; - } + if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) return -EACCES; - } if (err == XST_PM_ALREADY_CONFIGURED) { debug("PMUFW Node is already configured\n"); @@ -299,8 +288,14 @@ static int zynqmp_power_probe(struct udevice *dev) ret >> ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT, ret & ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR_MASK); - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)) - zynqmp_pmufw_node(PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE); + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)) { + ret = zynqmp_pmufw_node(PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE); + if (ret == -EACCES) + skip_config = true; + + if (!ret) + printf("PMUFW: Permission to change config object\n"); + } return 0; };
Hi Michal, Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: > Hi, > > On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >> >>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>> >>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is used to >>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be skipped. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>> config object\n"); >>>> return err; >>>> } >>> >>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>> which have to match. >> >> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >> >>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >> >> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is intended. >> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >> config objects is supported. >> >>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>> >>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >> >> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >> >>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>> to check in every call. >> >> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside zynqmp_pmufw_node >> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >> >>> >>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>> 86 skip_config = true; > > Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config > is configured and checked only once at probe time. > > What do you think? Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we use a debug instead? The patch change the return value of zynqmp_pmufw_node() but this doesn't matter because if the config object isn't supported the function will always return zero. > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > index ece00e7958a4..aebb6f6d6d95 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c > @@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ static unsigned int xpm_configobject_close[] = { > 0U, /* Loading permission to Overlay config object */ > }; > > +static bool skip_config; > + > int zynqmp_pmufw_config_close(void) > { > zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject_close, > @@ -71,22 +73,14 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_config_close(void) > > int zynqmp_pmufw_node(u32 id) > { > - static bool skip_config; > - int ret; > - > if (skip_config) > return 0; > > /* Record power domain id */ > xpm_configobject[NODE_ID_LOCATION] = id; > > - ret = zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject, > - sizeof(xpm_configobject)); > - > - if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE) > - skip_config = true; > - > - return 0; > + return zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(xpm_configobject, > + sizeof(xpm_configobject)); > } > > static int do_pm_probe(void) > @@ -251,13 +245,8 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void > *cfg_obj, size_t size) > > err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, > 0, 0, > 0, ret_payload); > - if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { > - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == > PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE) { > - printf("PMUFW: No permission to change config object\n"); > - return err; > - } > + if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) > return -EACCES; > - } > > if (err == XST_PM_ALREADY_CONFIGURED) { > debug("PMUFW Node is already configured\n"); > @@ -299,8 +288,14 @@ static int zynqmp_power_probe(struct udevice *dev) > ret >> ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MAJOR_SHIFT, > ret & ZYNQMP_PM_VERSION_MINOR_MASK); > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)) > - zynqmp_pmufw_node(PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE); > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)) { > + ret = zynqmp_pmufw_node(PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE); > + if (ret == -EACCES) > + skip_config = true; > + > + if (!ret) > + printf("PMUFW: Permission to change config object\n"); > + } > > return 0; > }; > > >
On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >> Hi, >> >> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> >>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>> >>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is used to >>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be skipped. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>> config object\n"); >>>>> return err; >>>>> } >>>> >>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>> which have to match. >>> >>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>> >>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>> >>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is intended. >>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >>> config objects is supported. >>> >>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>> >>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>> >>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>> >>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>> to check in every call. >>> >>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside zynqmp_pmufw_node >>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >>> >>>> >>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>> 86 skip_config = true; >> >> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config >> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >> >> What do you think? > > Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we > use a debug instead? It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. It means having information in boot log is quite worth. Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able to use it in scripts. Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can do it via command). Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. Definitely it should be tested to make sure that we don't break existing behavior. Thanks, Michal
Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> Hi Michal, >>>> >>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> >>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>> used to >>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>> skipped. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>> return err; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>> which have to match. >>>> >>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>> >>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>> >>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>> intended. >>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >>>> config objects is supported. >>>> >>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>> >>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>> >>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>> to check in every call. >>>> >>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>> >>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config >>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >> use a debug instead? > > It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. Is this information really necessary for a production build? > It means having information in boot log is quite worth. Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. > Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able > to use it in scripts. > Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that > config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can > do it via command). > > Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by > default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the > name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the probe as first user. > Definitely it should be tested to make sure that we don't break > existing behavior. Regards Stefan
On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>> >>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>> used to >>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>> which have to match. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>> >>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>> >>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>> intended. >>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>> >>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>> >>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>> >>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>> >>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>> >>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config >>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >>> use a debug instead? >> >> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. > > Is this information really necessary for a production build? For production build no. But there are other messages which are likely not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one version) for example. > >> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. > > Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is > disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, disabled or enabled. >> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >> to use it in scripts. >> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >> do it via command). >> >> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the >> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. > > The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the > probe as first user. It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can disable power domain driver and then first call can be via command. Thanks, Michal
Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: > > > On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> Hi Michal, >>>> >>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No >>>>>>>> permission to >>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for >>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>> intended. >>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission >>>>>> for a >>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if >>>>>> load of >>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>> >>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in >>>>>>> zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>> >>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't >>>>>> support it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>> >>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that >>>>> skip_config >>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >>>> use a debug instead? >>> >>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >> >> Is this information really necessary for a production build? > > For production build no. But there are other messages which are likely > not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one version) > for example. > >> >>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >> >> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is >> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. > > By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. > I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, > disabled or enabled. > > >>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >>> to use it in scripts. >>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >>> do it via command). >>> >>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the >>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >> >> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the >> probe as first user. > > It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can > disable power domain driver and then first call can be via command. Isn't the probe function the first caller always because it setup the ipi? Regards Stefan
Hi Michal, Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> Hi Michal, >>>> >>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No >>>>>>>> permission to >>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for >>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>> intended. >>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission >>>>>> for a >>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if >>>>>> load of >>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>> >>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in >>>>>>> zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>> >>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't >>>>>> support it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>> >>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that >>>>> skip_config >>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >>>> use a debug instead? >>> >>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >> >> Is this information really necessary for a production build? > > For production build no. But there are other messages which are likely > not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one version) > for example. Could we use log_info instead of printf? >>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >> >> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is >> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. > > By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. > I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, > disabled or enabled. Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for the other platforms? >>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >>> to use it in scripts. >>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >>> do it via command). >>> >>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the >>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >> >> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the >> probe as first user. > > It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can > disable power domain driver and then first call can be via command. We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms to enable / disable the feature. I have test your changes and they works. Regards Stefan
On 4/21/23 11:56, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: > >> On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>> >>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>>> intended. >>>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >>>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >>>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>>> >>>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config >>>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >>>>> use a debug instead? >>>> >>>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >>> >>> Is this information really necessary for a production build? >> >> For production build no. But there are other messages which are likely not >> needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one version) for example. > > Could we use log_info instead of printf? That should be fine that you can filter it out if you like. > >>>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >>> >>> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is >>> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. >> >> By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. >> I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, disabled >> or enabled. > > Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for the other > platforms? Not sure what you mean by other platforms. If you mean different xilinx SoCs then no. If you mean other then SOM. You can enable that feature and use it but it is only tested and enabled by default on SOMs. >>>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >>>> to use it in scripts. >>>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >>>> do it via command). >>>> >>>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the >>>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >>> >>> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the >>> probe as first user. >> >> It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can disable >> power domain driver and then first call can be via command. > > We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms to enable / > disable the feature. as above. Please explain what you mean by all platforms. And it is called from probe() already. > I have test your changes and they works. on zcu102 or also others? M
Am 21.04.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 4/21/23 11:56, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Hi Michal, >> >> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >> >>> On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No >>>>>>>>>> permission to >>>>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const >>>>>>>>>> void >>>>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for >>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>>>> intended. >>>>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission >>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if >>>>>>>> load of >>>>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of >>>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in >>>>>>>>> zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't >>>>>>>> support it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that >>>>>>> skip_config >>>>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>> >>>>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? >>>>>> Could we >>>>>> use a debug instead? >>>>> >>>>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >>>> >>>> Is this information really necessary for a production build? >>> >>> For production build no. But there are other messages which are >>> likely not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one >>> version) for example. >> >> Could we use log_info instead of printf? > > That should be fine that you can filter it out if you like. > >> >>>>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >>>> >>>> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is >>>> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. >>> >>> By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. >>> I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, >>> disabled or enabled. >> >> Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for the >> other platforms? > > Not sure what you mean by other platforms. > If you mean different xilinx SoCs then no. > If you mean other then SOM. You can enable that feature and use it but > it is only tested and enabled by default on SOMs. I was confused by the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)`. Why is this needed? >>>>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >>>>> to use it in scripts. >>>>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>>>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >>>>> do it via command). >>>>> >>>>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>>>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change >>>>> the >>>>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >>>> >>>> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the >>>> probe as first user. >>> >>> It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can >>> disable power domain driver and then first call can be via command. >> >> We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms >> to enable / disable the feature. > > as above. Please explain what you mean by all platforms. > And it is called from probe() already. The problem is that this driver doesn't really follow the driver model and is hard to understand. Other drivers requires an udevice for its functions. In this case the uclass_get_device_by_phandle() will ensure that the driver is probed or a failure is returned. If we want to ensure that zynqmp_pmufw_node() is skipped without a previous call of zynqmp_power_probe() we have to keep the check in the function. >> I have test your changes and they works. > > on zcu102 or also others? I have test it on our hardware. Regards Stefan
On 4/21/23 13:39, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: > Am 21.04.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Michal Simek: >> On 4/21/23 11:56, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> >>>> On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to >>>>>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to change >>>>>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations >>>>>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this >>>>>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>>>>> intended. >>>>>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a >>>>>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of >>>>>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of >>>>>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config >>>>>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we >>>>>>> use a debug instead? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >>>>> >>>>> Is this information really necessary for a production build? >>>> >>>> For production build no. But there are other messages which are likely not >>>> needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one version) for example. >>> >>> Could we use log_info instead of printf? >> >> That should be fine that you can filter it out if you like. >> >>> >>>>>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >>>>> >>>>> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is >>>>> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. >>>> >>>> By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. >>>> I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only once, disabled >>>> or enabled. >>> >>> Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for the other >>> platforms? >> >> Not sure what you mean by other platforms. >> If you mean different xilinx SoCs then no. >> If you mean other then SOM. You can enable that feature and use it but it is >> only tested and enabled by default on SOMs. > > I was confused by the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)`. Why is this needed? Because driver is used by other Xilinx/AMD SOCs but pmufw is only ZynqMP specific firmware. Newer one are using PLM. > >>>>>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able >>>>>> to use it in scripts. >>>>>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>>>>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can >>>>>> do it via command). >>>>>> >>>>>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>>>>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the >>>>>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >>>>> >>>>> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the >>>>> probe as first user. >>>> >>>> It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you can disable >>>> power domain driver and then first call can be via command. >>> >>> We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms to enable >>> / disable the feature. >> >> as above. Please explain what you mean by all platforms. >> And it is called from probe() already. > > The problem is that this driver doesn't really follow the driver model and is > hard to understand. Other drivers requires an udevice for its functions. In this > case the uclass_get_device_by_phandle() will ensure that the driver is probed or > a failure is returned. Not quite sure I am following you. zynqmp_power_domain is bind from zynqmp-firmware bind method. And both of these drivers are based on driver model. The same technique is used in Linux kernel. We can definitely talk if zynqmp_firmware_bind() is the right location when power domain should be bound but not likely an issue. Or maybe you see there another issue. Definitely happy to get to more details. Thanks, Michal
Hi Michal, Am 24.04.2023 um 15:43 schrieb Michal Simek: > > > On 4/21/23 13:39, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >> Am 21.04.2023 um 12:08 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> On 4/21/23 11:56, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>> Hi Michal, >>>> >>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> >>>>> On 4/20/23 14:30, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>> On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Michal, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No >>>>>>>>>>>> permission to >>>>>>>>>>>> change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is >>>>>>>>>>>> used to >>>>>>>>>>>> detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be >>>>>>>>>>>> skipped. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier >>>>>>>>>>>> <stefan.herbrechtsmeier@weidmueller.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int >>>>>>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void >>>>>>>>>>>> *cfg_obj, size_t size) >>>>>>>>>>>> err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, >>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, >>>>>>>>>>>> 0, ret_payload); >>>>>>>>>>>> if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { >>>>>>>>>>>> - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == >>>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != >>>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { >>>>>>>>>>>> printf("PMUFW: No permission to >>>>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>>>> config object\n"); >>>>>>>>>>>> return err; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> First of all we should very likely create a macro for >>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0 >>>>>>>>>>> to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different >>>>>>>>>>> locations >>>>>>>>>>> which have to match. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part >>>>>>>>>>> of this >>>>>>>>>>> patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is >>>>>>>>>> intended. >>>>>>>>>> The message should be printed if you don’t heave the >>>>>>>>>> permission for a >>>>>>>>>> specific config object and not if the driver checks for >>>>>>>>>> support of >>>>>>>>>> config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if >>>>>>>>>> load of >>>>>>>>>> config objects is supported. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And changes in 2/2 makes sense. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would be even fine to move skip_config out of >>>>>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node() >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the >>>>>>>>>> skip_config variable is static inside the function. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and setting up skip_config value directly in >>>>>>>>>>> zynqmp_power_probe() not >>>>>>>>>>> to check in every call. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We still need to check the skip_config variable inside >>>>>>>>>> zynqmp_pmufw_node >>>>>>>>>> to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't >>>>>>>>>> support it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == >>>>>>>>>>> NODE_OCM_BANK_0) >>>>>>>>>>> 86 skip_config = true; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that >>>>>>>>> skip_config >>>>>>>>> is configured and checked only once at probe time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? >>>>>>>> Could we >>>>>>>> use a debug instead? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this information really necessary for a production build? >>>>> >>>>> For production build no. But there are other messages which are >>>>> likely not needed. Like a silicon version (production is only one >>>>> version) for example. >>>> >>>> Could we use log_info instead of printf? >>> >>> That should be fine that you can filter it out if you like. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> It means having information in boot log is quite worth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Either we should print a message in any case or only if the >>>>>> feature is >>>>>> disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop. >>>>> >>>>> By default that feature should be disabled in standard pmufw build. >>>>> I don't have a preference but I want to see that message only >>>>> once, disabled or enabled. >>>> >>>> Is it possible to call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in the probe() for >>>> the other platforms? >>> >>> Not sure what you mean by other platforms. >>> If you mean different xilinx SoCs then no. >>> If you mean other then SOM. You can enable that feature and use it >>> but it is only tested and enabled by default on SOMs. >> >> I was confused by the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)`. Why is this >> needed? > > Because driver is used by other Xilinx/AMD SOCs but pmufw is only > ZynqMP specific firmware. Newer one are using PLM. The source file contains two drivers: - zynqmp_firmware - zynqmp_power Isn't the zynqmp_power driver zynqmp specific and thereby the zynqmp_power_probe function which contains the `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ZYNQMP)` check? > >> >>>>>>> Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be >>>>>>> able >>>>>>> to use it in scripts. >>>>>>> Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that >>>>>>> config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now >>>>>>> you can >>>>>>> do it via command). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by >>>>>>> default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just >>>>>>> change the >>>>>>> name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section. >>>>>> >>>>>> The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by >>>>>> the >>>>>> probe as first user. >>>>> >>>>> It should be but question is if it is in all cases. At least you >>>>> can disable power domain driver and then first call can be via >>>>> command. >>>> >>>> We should call the zynqmp_pmufw_node() in probe() for all platforms >>>> to enable / disable the feature. >>> >>> as above. Please explain what you mean by all platforms. >>> And it is called from probe() already. >> >> The problem is that this driver doesn't really follow the driver >> model and is hard to understand. Other drivers requires an udevice >> for its functions. In this case the uclass_get_device_by_phandle() >> will ensure that the driver is probed or a failure is returned. > > Not quite sure I am following you. > zynqmp_power_domain is bind from zynqmp-firmware bind method. > And both of these drivers are based on driver model. I mean the exported functions like zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(). This function calls xilinx_pm_request() which calls ipi_req() which calls do_pm_probe() if the global data isn't initialized. I think a cleaner solution would be if the ipi_req functions required the udevice as parameter and the xilinx_pm_request function would call the uclass_get_device_by_driver to get the udevice. This would also eliminate the global data in the driver. Maybe even the zynqmp_pmufw_node() function should require an udevice because this is already described in the device tree and struct power_domain and makes clear that this functions requires a probed zynqmp_power driver. At the moment you have to analyses the whole driver code to understand that a first call of zynqmp_pmufw_node() will probe the zynqmp_power driver via zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object() --> xilinx_pm_request() --> ipi_req() --> do_pm_probe() only if the CONFIG_ZYNQMP_IPI is enabled in SPL or EL 3. Otherwise the xilinx_pm_request() will use smc_call() or failed. This means that after your change the zynqmp_pmufw_node() function content will only be skipped if IPI is enabled and we are in SPL or EL 3. Regards Stefan
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void *cfg_obj, size_t size) err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION, (u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0, 0, ret_payload); if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) { - if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] == NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { + if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] != NODE_OCM_BANK_0) { printf("PMUFW: No permission to change config object\n"); return err; }