[v8,2/9] remoteproc: qcom: Add secure PIL support

IPQ8074 uses secure PIL. Hence, adding the support for the same.

Signed-off-by: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <gokulsri@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Nikhil Prakash V <nprakash@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

On Fri 29 Jan 23:20 CST 2021, Gokul Sriram Palanisamy wrote:

> IPQ8074 uses secure PIL. Hence, adding the support for the same.
> 

Sorry for not giving this a proper review before Gokul, I've look at it
but been uncertain about what feedback to offer.

> Signed-off-by: Gokul Sriram Palanisamy <gokulsri@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Prakash V <nprakash@codeaurora.org>

I suspect that there should have some "Co-developed-by" here (and in the
other patches)?

> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> index c0368bb..4e35e5c 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_wcss.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>  #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>  #include <linux/reset.h>
>  #include <linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h>
> +#include <linux/qcom_scm.h>
>  #include "qcom_common.h"
>  #include "qcom_pil_info.h"
>  #include "qcom_q6v5.h"
> @@ -86,6 +87,9 @@
>  #define TCSR_WCSS_CLK_ENABLE	0x14
>  
>  #define MAX_HALT_REG		3
> +
> +#define WCNSS_PAS_ID		6
> +
>  enum {
>  	WCSS_IPQ8074,
>  	WCSS_QCS404,
> @@ -134,6 +138,7 @@ struct q6v5_wcss {
>  	unsigned int crash_reason_smem;
>  	u32 version;
>  	bool requires_force_stop;
> +	bool need_mem_protection;
>  
>  	struct qcom_rproc_glink glink_subdev;
>  	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
> @@ -152,6 +157,7 @@ struct wcss_data {
>  	int ssctl_id;
>  	const struct rproc_ops *ops;
>  	bool requires_force_stop;
> +	bool need_mem_protection;
>  };
>  
>  static int q6v5_wcss_reset(struct q6v5_wcss *wcss)
> @@ -251,6 +257,15 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  
>  	qcom_q6v5_prepare(&wcss->q6v5);
>  
> +	if (wcss->need_mem_protection) {
> +		ret = qcom_scm_pas_auth_and_reset(WCNSS_PAS_ID);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(wcss->dev, "wcss_reset failed\n");
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +		goto wait_for_reset;

This goto essentially puts the entire old function in an "else" block.

> +	}
> +
>  	/* Release Q6 and WCSS reset */
>  	ret = reset_control_deassert(wcss->wcss_reset);
>  	if (ret) {
> @@ -285,6 +300,7 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto wcss_q6_reset;
>  
> +wait_for_reset:
>  	ret = qcom_q6v5_wait_for_start(&wcss->q6v5, 5 * HZ);
>  	if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT)
>  		dev_err(wcss->dev, "start timed out\n");
> @@ -717,6 +733,15 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	struct q6v5_wcss *wcss = rproc->priv;
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	if (wcss->need_mem_protection) {
> +		ret = qcom_scm_pas_shutdown(WCNSS_PAS_ID);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(wcss->dev, "not able to shutdown\n");
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +		goto pas_done;

Same here.

> +	}
> +
>  	/* WCSS powerdown */
>  	if (wcss->requires_force_stop) {
>  		ret = qcom_q6v5_request_stop(&wcss->q6v5, NULL);
> @@ -741,6 +766,7 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>  			return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +pas_done:
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(wcss->prng_clk);
>  	qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&wcss->q6v5);
>  
> @@ -764,9 +790,15 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	struct q6v5_wcss *wcss = rproc->priv;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	ret = qcom_mdt_load_no_init(wcss->dev, fw, rproc->firmware,
> -				    0, wcss->mem_region, wcss->mem_phys,
> -				    wcss->mem_size, &wcss->mem_reloc);
> +	if (wcss->need_mem_protection)
> +		ret = qcom_mdt_load(wcss->dev, fw, rproc->firmware,
> +				    WCNSS_PAS_ID, wcss->mem_region,
> +				    wcss->mem_phys, wcss->mem_size,
> +				    &wcss->mem_reloc);
> +	else
> +		ret = qcom_mdt_load_no_init(wcss->dev, fw, rproc->firmware,
> +					    0, wcss->mem_region, wcss->mem_phys,
> +					    wcss->mem_size, &wcss->mem_reloc);

And same here.

In practice this means that you're essentially overloading new logic to
all code paths though the driver. Left is some boilerplate code, which I
wish we could refactor into common helper functions in the framework
(e.g. we duplicate q6v5_alloc_memory_region() in a lot of drivers).

So with this in mind, instead of overloading new logic to this entire
driver, could you please submit a new driver for the PAS based IPQ WCSS?

Regards,
Bjorn

>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> @@ -1032,6 +1064,9 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!desc)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (desc->need_mem_protection && !qcom_scm_is_available())
> +		return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +
>  	rproc = rproc_alloc(&pdev->dev, pdev->name, desc->ops,
>  			    desc->firmware_name, sizeof(*wcss));
>  	if (!rproc) {
> @@ -1045,6 +1080,7 @@ static int q6v5_wcss_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	wcss->version = desc->version;
>  	wcss->requires_force_stop = desc->requires_force_stop;
> +	wcss->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
>  
>  	ret = q6v5_wcss_init_mmio(wcss, pdev);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -1115,6 +1151,7 @@ static const struct wcss_data wcss_ipq8074_res_init = {
>  	.wcss_q6_reset_required = true,
>  	.ops = &q6v5_wcss_ipq8074_ops,
>  	.requires_force_stop = true,
> +	.need_mem_protection = true,
>  };
>  
>  static const struct wcss_data wcss_qcs404_res_init = {
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>