Add RPMI MPXY Integration chapter #49

pathakraul · 2024-09-06T03:20:20Z

No description provided.

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:16:25Z

src/intro.adoc


 [#img-transport-topologies]
 .Transport for M-Mode and S-Mode
 image::transport-topologies.png[width=800,height=800, align="center"]

-RPMI is designed to work with a single or multi-tenant topology as shown
-above.
+==== RPMI Instance


Similar to "RPMI client"?
some chapter uses "client".

No, client is always meant as a driver or SW which sends the RPMI message or data.
RPMI client uses an RPMI instance to do that.

If somewhere client is misinterpreted then we need to correct that

yes, i saw some use 'client' in other chapters.

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:17:31Z

src/srvgrp-base.adoc

@@ -197,10 +200,10 @@ the `MAJOR` and `MINOR` numbers.
 ! Description

 ! [31:16]
-! `MAJOR` number
+! `MAJOR` Number


need capital letter for ‘N'?

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:18:51Z

src/srvgrp-base.adoc

-! [31:2]
-! _Reserved_ and must be `0`.
+! [31:3]
+! _Reserved, must be initialized to_ `0`.


the whole sentence needs to be italic xxx font?

Thats how i have done for all groups which i have updated so far

But now i see its not same everywhere

I will make only RESERVED as italic so we have less work to do

yes, Joshua previous patch make them all to "Reserved and must be 0."

Thats why i was wondering why suddenly this changed since i did the older way
I will let you and Joshua do these kind of formatting now :) Will save everyones time

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:19:41Z

src/srvgrp-base.adoc

@@ -502,17 +524,17 @@ processor will take the wired interrupt.
 | 0
 | MSI_ADDRESS_LOW
 | uint32
-| Lower 32-bit of the MSI address.
+| Lower 32-bit of the MSI address


your patch revert changes from Joshua?

Yes, sorry, i had to merge manually while rebasing and missed couple of changes

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:25:02Z

src/srvgrp-base.adoc

+! _Reserved, must be initialized to_ `0`.
+
+! [2]
+! The RISC-V privilege level to which the RPMI instance belong.


Then Firmware needs to know this and return the correct mode?
why we need this?

Now combining this information with the MPXY chapter requirement. The M-Mode RPMI instance will know exactly which service groups will belong to MPXY and which will not

but this information need retrieve from platform microcontroller?

Because based on the mailbox we will create platform microcontroller will know which mailbox is meant for M-Mode and which one for S-Mode. Thats how a transport itself establishes as Secure or non secure

PuC and DT details for mailbox have to be in sync

but this also means needs to be fixed, can't have one PuC FW to support different use cases. Need to update PuC FW.

This will be fixed only, its really a static information since you will be fixing the mailbox(shared memory) and assigning it for an RPMI instance and then providing it to DT. PuC firmware already aware of this and its a static detail. This could have been a part of DT node also but you need additional or new DT properties to encode this

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:25:37Z

src/rpmi-mpxy.adoc

+:rootpath: ./../
+endif::rootpath[]
+
+== RPMI Integration with SBI MPXY extension.


remove full stop in header.

extension change to "Extension"

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:35:09Z

src/rpmi-mpxy.adoc

+exposed to the S-mode over SBI MPXY interface and RPMI message protocol specific
+attributes for MPXY channel.
+
+The service groups that have dedicated SBI extension cannot be


In the previous meeting, there were people commenting about this, right? One example is CPPC, people might want to use S-mode RPMI with fast-channel?

Page 10, Recommendation for "Exclusive Interface Choice with MPXY or S-mode RPMI for a Specific RPMI Service Group"
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EsrcgUZiXf_mqt4Wcd0oiRyLw4ZIGaVMa6Ew0GZ7hoQ/edit#slide=id.g2cd11e3ec8b_9_7

I have already mentioned that this case is when RPMI instance is in M-Mode. S Mode RPMI instance can implement CPPC at their wish.

I have already mentioned that this case is when RPMI instance is in M-Mode. S Mode RPMI instance can implement CPPC at their wish.

got this part?

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:38:22Z

src/service-groups.adoc


-The following table lists the service group
+In each service group the `SERVICE_ID = 0x00` is dedicated to a notification type
+service used to send events notification and a `SERVICE_ID = 0x1` dedicated for


change to 0x01

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:42:47Z

src/srvgrp-system-reset.adoc

@@ -27,7 +27,8 @@ necessary to categorize it as a graceful or forceful shutdown. In the case of
 a shutdown request, it is implicit for the platform microcontroller that the
 application processor has prepared itself for a successful shutdown.

-Below table lists the services in this group:
+Below table lists the services in the SYSTEM_RESET service group:


"The following table lists the services in the SYSTEM_RESET service group:"

All service groups can follow the same.

lftan · 2024-09-06T06:43:00Z

src/srvgrp-system-suspend.adoc

@@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ platform microcontroller that all the application processors except the one
 requesting are in `STOPPED` state and necessary state saving in the RAM has
 been complete.

-Below if the list of services in this group:
+Below if the list of services in the SYSTEM_SUSPEND service group:


grammar issue

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

lftan · 2024-09-07T06:06:55Z

src/service-groups.adoc


 | 0x0001
 |
 | BASE
+| M-mode, S-mode


In the get privilege level service, it only has M-mode and Non M-mode.
Should we change S-mode here to S-Mode and U-Mode? Or no limit to any privilege level

No, We are fixing the Base service group attribute to convey whats possible, and by Non-M-Mode we can encompass what may be possible in future.

This table is explicit about whats "currently" possible. And this table is also in constant update if anything changes in future

lftan · 2024-09-07T06:16:28Z

src/rpmi-mpxy.adoc

+image::mpxy-rpmi.png[350,350, align="center"]
+
+RPMI service groups that are M-mode only, including BASE, which is an exception
+must not be accessible via SBI MPXY interface. A MPXY channel


This mean BASE service group can't use SBI MPXY interface?

I thought we want allow BASE via MPXY after that

S-mode software can get some basic information of RPMI, such as RPMI version etc..

Few things to consider -

RPMI Base was never meant for the MPXY. RPMI base group only and only manages a RPMI context. MPXY channel is not a RPMI context. Its not even a RPMI transport. But you are right that these details are required and thats why we have attributes in the MPXY channel.

From your comment i just added Service group version as an attribute also in the MPXY chapter. So, all these things like RPMI
version and service group version whatever is required by a MPXY client using RPMI, has to be via channel attributes, either Standard or Message Proto specific attributes.

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

lftan reviewed Sep 6, 2024

View reviewed changes

pathakraul force-pushed the rpathak_mpxychapter branch 4 times, most recently from 323f707 to d13b8a5 Compare September 6, 2024 07:35

pathakraul added 4 commits September 6, 2024 22:24

Define RPMI context and details

e5e6d26

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

Add ServiceGroup versioning and RPMI context M-mode level flag

a28c537

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

Add RPMI MPXY integration chapter

c15e8f4

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

Formatting changes in CPPC, SysReset, SysSuspend

4d1403f

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

pathakraul force-pushed the rpathak_mpxychapter branch from d13b8a5 to 4d1403f Compare September 6, 2024 17:59

Change transport association with set of application processors

81c915f

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

lftan reviewed Sep 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

pathakraul added 2 commits September 7, 2024 12:19

Add changelog and terms adoc

aca7bbb

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

Add Service group version as mpxy channel attribute

e89a2bc

Signed-off-by: Rahul Pathak <[email protected]>

lftan merged commit 12627a0 into riscv-non-isa:main Sep 7, 2024
1 check passed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add RPMI MPXY Integration chapter #49

Add RPMI MPXY Integration chapter #49

pathakraul commented Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lftan Sep 6, 2024

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 6, 2024

lftan Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lftan Sep 7, 2024

lftan Sep 7, 2024

lftan Sep 7, 2024

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Add RPMI MPXY Integration chapter #49

Add RPMI MPXY Integration chapter #49

Conversation

pathakraul commented Sep 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lftan Sep 6, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lftan Sep 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pathakraul Sep 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lftan Sep 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

lftan Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading

pathakraul Sep 7, 2024 •

edited

Loading