Re: [RFC 0/3] Add Generic SPI GPIO model

[Dan Zhang]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:25 AM Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org> wrote:
>
> On 7/31/22 00:06, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:18:33PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> On 7/29/22 19:30, Peter Delevoryas wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 03:25:55PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>>> Hello Iris,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/29/22 01:23, Iris Chen wrote:
> >>>>> Hey everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have been working on a project to add support for SPI-based TPMs in 
> >>>>> QEMU.
> >>>>> Currently, most of our vboot platforms using a SPI-based TPM use the 
> >>>>> Linux
> >>>>> SPI-GPIO driver to "bit-bang" the SPI protocol. This is because the 
> >>>>> Aspeed
> >>>>> SPI controller (modeled in QEMU under hw/ssi/aspeed_smc.c) has an 
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>> deficiency that prevents bi-directional operations.
> >>>> aspeed_smc models the Aspeed FMC/SPI controllers which have a well 
> >>>> defined
> >>>> HW interface. Your model proposal adds support for a new SPI controller
> >>>> using bitbang GPIOs. These are really two differents models. I don't see
> >>>> how you could reuse aspeed_smc for this purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>> or you mean that Linux is using the SPI-GPIO driver because the Linux
> >>>> Aspeed SMC driver doesn't match the need ? It is true that the Linux
> >>>> driver is not generic, it deals with flash devices only. But that's
> >>>> another problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thus, in order to connect
> >>>>> a TPM to this bus, my patch implements a QEMU SPI-GPIO driver (as the 
> >>>>> QEMU
> >>>>> counterpart of the Linux SPI-GPIO driver).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we use SPI-based TPMs on many of our BMCs for the secure-boot 
> >>>>> implementation,
> >>>>> I have already tested this implementation locally with our 
> >>>>> Yosemite-v3.5 platform
> >>>>> and Facebook-OpenBMC. This model was tested by connecting a generic 
> >>>>> SPI-NOR (m25p80
> >>>>> for example) to the Yosemite-v3.5 SPI bus containing the TPM.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch is an RFC because I have several questions about design. 
> >>>>> Although the
> >>>>> model is working, I understand there are many areas where the design 
> >>>>> decision
> >>>>> is not deal (ie. abstracting hard coded GPIO values). Below are some 
> >>>>> details of the
> >>>>> patch and specific areas where I would appreciate feedback on how to 
> >>>>> make this better:
> >>>>> hw/arm/aspeed.c:
> >>>>> I am not sure where the best place is to instantiate the spi_gpio 
> >>>>> besides the
> >>>>> aspeed_machine_init.
> >>>>
> >>>> The SPI GPIO device would be a platform device and not a SoC device.
> >>>> Hence, it should be instantiated at the machine level, like the I2C
> >>>> device are, using properties to let the model know about the GPIOs
> >>>> that should be driven to implement the SPI protocol.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed, should be like an I2C device.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ideally, the state of the GPIO controller pins and the SPI GPIO state
> >>>> should be shared. I think that's what you are trying to do that with
> >>>> attribute 'controller_state' in your patch ? But, the way it is done
> >>>> today, is too tightly coupled (names) with the Aspeed GPIO model to
> >>>> be generic.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we need an intermediate QOM interface, or a base class, to
> >>>> implement an abstract SPI GPIO model and an Aspeed SPI GPIO model
> >>>> on top which would be linked to the Aspeed GPIO model of the SoC
> >>>> in use.
> >>>
> >>> Disagree, I feel like we can accomplish this without inheritance.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Or we could introduce some kind of generic GPIO controller that
> >>>> we would link the SPI GPIO model with (using a property). The
> >>>> Aspeed GPIO model would be of that kind and the SPI GPIO model
> >>>> would be able to drive the pins using a common interface.
> >>>> That's another way to do it.
> >>>
> >>> Agree, I would like to go in this direction if at all possible.
> >> Let's give it a try then. I would introduce a new QOM interface,
> >> something like  :
> >>
> >>      #define TYPE_GPIO_INTERFACE "gpio-interface"
> >>      #define GPIO_INTERFACE(obj)                                     \
> >>          INTERFACE_CHECK(GpioInterface, (obj), TYPE_GPIO_INTERFACE)
> >>      typedef struct GpioInterfaceClass GpioInterfaceClass;
> >>      DECLARE_CLASS_CHECKERS(GpioInterfaceClass, GPIO_INTERFACE,
> >>                             TYPE_GPIO_INTERFACE)
> >>      struct GpioInterfaceClass {
> >>          InterfaceClass parent;
> >>          int (*get)(GpioInterface *gi, ...);
> >>          int (*set)(GpioInterface *gi, ...);
> >>          ...
> >>      };
> >>
> >> and implement the interface handlers under the AspeedGPIO model.
> >> The SPI GPIO model would have a link to such an interface to drive
> >> the GPIO pins.
> >>
> >> See IPMI and XIVE for some more complete models.
> >
> > This sounds good, but I just want to clarify first:
> >
> > Is it necessary to introduce a GPIO interface?
>
> Well, my feeling is that we need an abstract layer to interface the
> SPI GPIO model with any model of GPIO controller.
>
This abstract layer can be in form of virtual func of spi_gpio base class
set_cs(bool), set_clk(), set_mosi(), get_miso().
This give user (normally the board model creator ) the full flexibility as
how to implement these function in inherit class of spi_gpio i.e.
aspeed_spi_gpio

The down side of virtual function "abstract" layer is that user need
to write QEMU code.

Another form of abstract layer is "output pin and properties of GPIO
controller model"
The pro of this is that as long as the GPIO controller provides these
required output pin
and property, the final user can use command line input parameters to
connect the
spi_gpio with the gpio controller.

The required pin and property to controller model will be:
Two named output pins exposed as QEMUIrq, which will be used as SPI_CS
and SPI_CLK.
Two properties which can be used by spi_gpio to get (sample) the level
as SPI_MOSI and
set the level as SPI_MISO.


> > Or, could we connect the IRQ's just using the existing
> > QOM/sysbus/object/IRQ infrastructure?
>
> and we would use the QOM canonical path to identify the GPIO pins
> and QOM routines to get and set the values ? It looks feasible.
> That's how I would do it in a script but not in model.



>
> > I'll investigate if we can connect the IRQ's without introducing a new
> > interface. We can continue with this design for now though.
>
> OK. Let's see.
>
> >>>>> Could we add the ability to instantiate it on the command line?
> >>>>
> >>>> It might be complex to identify the QOM object to use as the GPIO
> >>>> controller from the command line since it is on the SoC and not
> >>>> a platform device. In that case, an Aspeed SPI GPIO model would
> >>>> be a better approach. we  would have to peek in the machine/soc to
> >>>> get a link on the Aspeed GPIO model in the realize routine of the
> >>>> Aspeed SPI GPIO model.
> >>>
> >>> Hrrrm perhaps, I feel like it shouldn't be that hard though.
> >>>
> >>> - Get a pointer to the QOM object that holds the GPIO's using object
> >>>     path or ID. Something similar to '-device ftgmac100,netdev=<id>'
> >>>     right?
> >>
> >> yes. something like that.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >>
> >>> - Get the GPIO's by name from the QOM object.
> >>
> >> yes.
> >
> > +1
> >
> >>
> >>> In this situation, I think we should be able to get the GPIO controller
> >>> object, and then get the IRQ's by the "sysbus-irq[126]"/etc name.
> >>>
> >>> We could refactor the aspeed_gpio.c model to name the IRQ's like the
> >>> properties,.  to use "gpioX4" instead of "sysbus-irq[*]".
> >>
> >> we could use qdev_init_gpio_out_named() instead of sysbus_init_irq()
> >> to name them.
> >>
> >
> > +1, I actually suggested to Iris offline that this change might be
> > useful regardless.
>
> yes. This change can come as a preliminary.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>> m25p80_transfer8_ex in hw/block/m25p80.c:
> >>>>> Existing SPI model assumed that the output byte is fully formed, can be 
> >>>>> passed to
> >>>>> the SPI device, and the input byte can be returned, all in one 
> >>>>> operation. With
> >>>>> SPI-GPIO we don't have the input byte until all 8 bits of the output 
> >>>>> have been
> >>>>> shifted out, so we have to prime the MISO with bogus values (0xFF).
> >>>>
> >>>> That's fine I think. We do something similar for dummies.
> >>>>
> >>>>> MOSI pin in spi_gpio: the mosi pin is not included and we poll the 
> >>>>> realtime value
> >>>>> of the gpio for input bits to prevent bugs with caching the mosi value. 
> >>>>> It was discovered
> >>>>> during testing that when using the mosi pin as the input pin, the mosi 
> >>>>> value was not
> >>>>> being updated due to a kernel and aspeed_gpio model optimization.
> >>>>
> >>>> ah. We need help from Andrew ! the model should have a mosi pin .
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if this was clear, but Iris is just saying that she used object
> >>> properties to read and write the mosi, miso, and clk pins, rather than
> >>> the IRQ's.
> >>
> >> The IRQ line is not raised ?
> >
> > Something like that, yes. She was having trouble following the IRQ level
> > purely through edge changes. Perhaps this is due to a bug in
> > aspeed_gpio.c.
>
> That could be it. The HW logic is quite complex. Adding more tests as
> suggested by Andrew would help.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> C.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>> Certainly we'd like to use IRQ's instead, but she ran into correctness
> >>> problems. Maybe we can investigate that further and fix it.
> >>
> >> So much is happening in that mode. We need more trace events in the Aspeed
> >> GPIO model at least an extra in aspeed_gpio_update()
> >
> > +1
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> C.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> C.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thus, here we are
> >>>>> reading the value directly from the gpio controller instead of waiting 
> >>>>> for the push.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I realize there are Aspeed specifics in the spi_gpio model. To make 
> >>>>> this extensible,
> >>>>> is it preferred to make this into a base class and have our Aspeed SPI 
> >>>>> GPIO extend
> >>>>> this or we could set up params to pass in the constructor?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your review and any direction here would be helpful :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Iris Chen (3):
> >>>>>      hw: m25p80: add prereading ability in transfer8
> >>>>>      hw: spi_gpio: add spi gpio model
> >>>>>      hw: aspeed: hook up the spi gpio model
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     hw/arm/Kconfig            |   1 +
> >>>>>     hw/arm/aspeed.c           |   5 ++
> >>>>>     hw/block/m25p80.c         |  29 ++++++-
> >>>>>     hw/ssi/Kconfig            |   4 +
> >>>>>     hw/ssi/meson.build        |   1 +
> >>>>>     hw/ssi/spi_gpio.c         | 166 
> >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>     hw/ssi/ssi.c              |   4 -
> >>>>>     include/hw/ssi/spi_gpio.h |  38 +++++++++
> >>>>>     include/hw/ssi/ssi.h      |   5 ++
> >>>>>     9 files changed, 248 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>>     create mode 100644 hw/ssi/spi_gpio.c
> >>>>>     create mode 100644 include/hw/ssi/spi_gpio.h
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>