Re: [PATCH] docs: fusa: Add requirements for generic timer

[Bertrand Marquis <Bertrand.Marquis@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Michal,

> On 22 Aug 2024, at 11:00, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bertrand,
> 
> I agree with all your comments with a few exceptions, as stated below.
> 
> On 21/08/2024 17:06, Bertrand Marquis wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Ayan,
>> 
>>> On 20 Aug 2024, at 12:38, Ayan Kumar Halder <ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> Add the requirements for the use of generic timer by a domain
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ayan Kumar Halder <ayan.kumar.halder@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> .../reqs/design-reqs/arm64/generic-timer.rst  | 139 ++++++++++++++++++
>>> docs/fusa/reqs/index.rst                      |   3 +
>>> docs/fusa/reqs/intro.rst                      |   3 +-
>>> docs/fusa/reqs/market-reqs/reqs.rst           |  34 +++++
>>> docs/fusa/reqs/product-reqs/arm64/reqs.rst    |  24 +++
>>> 5 files changed, 202 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> create mode 100644 docs/fusa/reqs/design-reqs/arm64/generic-timer.rst
>>> create mode 100644 docs/fusa/reqs/market-reqs/reqs.rst
>>> create mode 100644 docs/fusa/reqs/product-reqs/arm64/reqs.rst
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/docs/fusa/reqs/design-reqs/arm64/generic-timer.rst 
>>> b/docs/fusa/reqs/design-reqs/arm64/generic-timer.rst
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000..bdd4fbf696
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/docs/fusa/reqs/design-reqs/arm64/generic-timer.rst
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
>>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
>>> +
>>> +Generic Timer
>>> +=============
>>> +
>>> +The following are the requirements related to ARM Generic Timer [1] 
>>> interface
>>> +exposed by Xen to Arm64 domains.
>>> +
>>> +Probe the Generic Timer device tree node from a domain
>>> +------------------------------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_probe_dt~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall generate a device tree node for the Generic Timer (in accordance 
>>> to
>>> +ARM architected timer device tree binding [2]).
>> 
>> You might want to say where here. The domain device tree ?
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Rationale:
>>> +
>>> +Comments:
>>> +Domains shall probe the Generic Timer device tree node.
>> 
>> Please prevent the use of "shall" here. I would use "can".
>> Also detect the presence of might be better than probe.
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Covers:
>>> + - `XenProd~emulated_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Read system counter frequency
>>> +-----------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_read_freq~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall expose the frequency of the system counter to the domains.
>> 
>> The requirement would need to say in CNTFRQ_EL0 and in the domain device 
>> tree xxx entry.
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Rationale:
>>> +
>>> +Comments:
>>> +Domains shall read it via CNTFRQ_EL0 register or "clock-frequency" device 
>>> tree
>>> +property.
>> 
>> I do not think this comment is needed.
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Covers:
>>> + - `XenProd~emulated_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Access CNTKCTL_EL1 system register from a domain
>>> +------------------------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_access_cntkctlel1~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall expose counter-timer kernel control register to the domains.
>> 
>> "counter-timer kernel" is a bit odd here, is it the name from arm arm ?
>> Generic Timer control registers ? or directly the register name.
> This is the name from Arm ARM. See e.g.:
> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0601/2023-12/AArch64-Registers/CNTKCTL-EL1--Counter-timer-Kernel-Control-Register?lang=en

Right then i would use the same upper cases: Counter-timer Kernel Control
register and still mention CNTKCTL_EL1 as it would be clearer.

> 
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Rationale:
>>> +
>>> +Comments:
>>> +Domains shall access the counter-timer kernel control register to allow
>>> +controlling the access to the timer from userspace (EL0).
>> 
>> This is documented in the arm arm, this comment is not needed.
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Covers:
>>> + - `XenProd~emulated_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Access virtual timer from a domain
>>> +----------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_access_virtual_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall expose the virtual timer registers to the domains.
>>> +
>>> +Rationale:
>>> +
>>> +Comments:
>>> +Domains shall access and make use of the virtual timer by accessing the
>>> +following system registers:
>>> +CNTVCT_EL0,
>>> +CNTV_CTL_EL0,
>>> +CNTV_CVAL_EL0,
>>> +CNTV_TVAL_EL0.
>> 
>> The requirement to be complete should give this list, not the comment.
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Covers:
>>> + - `XenProd~emulated_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Access physical timer from a domain
>>> +-----------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_access_physical_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall expose physical timer registers to the domains.
>>> +
>>> +Rationale:
>>> +
>>> +Comments:
>>> +Domains shall access and make use of the physical timer by accessing the
>>> +following system registers:
>>> +CNTPCT_EL0,
>>> +CNTP_CTL_EL0,
>>> +CNTP_CVAL_EL0,
>>> +CNTP_TVAL_EL0.
>> 
>> same as upper
>> 
>>> +
>>> +Covers:
>>> + - `XenProd~emulated_timer~1`
>>> +
>>> +Trigger the virtual timer interrupt from a domain
>>> +-------------------------------------------------
>>> +
>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_generic_timer_trigger_virtual_interrupt~1`
>>> +
>>> +Description:
>>> +Xen shall enable the domains to program the virtual timer to generate the
>>> +interrupt.
>> 
>> I am not sure this is right here.
>> You gave access to the registers upper so Xen responsibility is not really to
>> enable anything but rather make sure that it generates an interrupt 
>> according to
>> how the registers have been programmed.
> I'm in two minds about it. On one hand you're right and the IRQ trigger is a 
> side-effect
> of programming the registers correctly. On the other, these are design 
> requirements which
> according to "fusa/reqs/intro.rst" describe what SW implementation is doing. 
> Our way of injecting
> timer IRQs into guests is a bit different (phys timer is fully emulated and 
> we use internal timers
> and for virt timer we first route IRQ to Xen, mask the IRQ and inject to 
> guest). If I were to write
> tests to cover Generic Timer requirements I'd expect to cover whether r.g. 
> masking/unmasking IRQ works,
> whether IRQ was received, etc.

This is true but i think it would be more logic in non design requirements to
phrase things to explain the domain point of view rather than how it is 
implemented.

Here the point is to have a timer fully functional from guest point of view, 
including
getting interrupts when the timer should generate one.

Maybe something like: Xen shall generate timer interrupts to domains when the 
timer condition asserts.

> 
> I'd like to know other opinions. @Stefano, @Artem
> 
> ~Michal

Cheers
Bertrand