From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@kernel.org>, <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_detach_device() wrapper Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 11:17:42 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <7b5556d8-e92c-f633-e58a-cdd71c25df29@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YLBu9Wr1vNiwsfWT@builder.lan> On 5/27/21 11:17 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri 21 May 19:03 CDT 2021, Suman Anna wrote: > >> The .attach() rproc ops is invoked through the helper >> rproc_attach_device(), but the .detach() ops is invoked >> directly at present. Introduce a similar wrapper function >> rproc_detach_device() for .detach() ops so that the code >> is symmetric. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 2 +- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 8 ++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index 6348aaa42bbb..6019f46001c8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) >> } >> >> /* Tell the remote processor the core isn't available anymore */ >> - ret = rproc->ops->detach(rproc); >> + ret = rproc_detach_device(rproc); >> if (ret) { >> dev_err(dev, "can't detach from rproc: %d\n", ret); >> return ret; >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> index a328e634b1de..931d50b6a0d1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> @@ -121,6 +121,14 @@ static inline int rproc_attach_device(struct rproc *rproc) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static inline int rproc_detach_device(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + if (rproc->ops->detach) >> + return rproc->ops->detach(rproc); >> + >> + return 0; > > I was going to complain that this will silently succeed to detach a > remoteproc when the driver doesn't implement detach, but then I realized > that in the current code path we just failed if it wasn't set. > > So this only becomes a problem if we're out of sync between the wish to > detach and the implementation of detach, in the later patch. > > But based on this, why do we allow rproc_attach_device() to succeed even > though a driver doesn't implement attach? Could we achieve the symmetry > by going the other way? We don't, it does throw an error. See rproc_validate(). The error-checking is somewhat asymmetric. Any remoteproc requiring attach behavior is supposed to be setting the rproc state as RPROC_DETACHED. The remoteproc core state-machine is dictated by that value between start and attach. rproc_validate() does check the required ops between RPROC_OFFLINE and RPROC_DETACHED states. Do you mean use return -EINVAL by default in both the wrappers? Atm, you will never exercise this particular code paths in either of these wrapper functions, because there are checks enforced even before these wrappers are invoked. regards Suman > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> +} >> + >> static inline >> int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> { >> -- >> 2.30.1 >>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>, Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@kernel.org>, <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_detach_device() wrapper Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 11:17:42 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <7b5556d8-e92c-f633-e58a-cdd71c25df29@ti.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YLBu9Wr1vNiwsfWT@builder.lan> On 5/27/21 11:17 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri 21 May 19:03 CDT 2021, Suman Anna wrote: > >> The .attach() rproc ops is invoked through the helper >> rproc_attach_device(), but the .detach() ops is invoked >> directly at present. Introduce a similar wrapper function >> rproc_detach_device() for .detach() ops so that the code >> is symmetric. >> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> >> --- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 2 +- >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 8 ++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index 6348aaa42bbb..6019f46001c8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -1869,7 +1869,7 @@ static int __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) >> } >> >> /* Tell the remote processor the core isn't available anymore */ >> - ret = rproc->ops->detach(rproc); >> + ret = rproc_detach_device(rproc); >> if (ret) { >> dev_err(dev, "can't detach from rproc: %d\n", ret); >> return ret; >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> index a328e634b1de..931d50b6a0d1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h >> @@ -121,6 +121,14 @@ static inline int rproc_attach_device(struct rproc *rproc) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static inline int rproc_detach_device(struct rproc *rproc) >> +{ >> + if (rproc->ops->detach) >> + return rproc->ops->detach(rproc); >> + >> + return 0; > > I was going to complain that this will silently succeed to detach a > remoteproc when the driver doesn't implement detach, but then I realized > that in the current code path we just failed if it wasn't set. > > So this only becomes a problem if we're out of sync between the wish to > detach and the implementation of detach, in the later patch. > > But based on this, why do we allow rproc_attach_device() to succeed even > though a driver doesn't implement attach? Could we achieve the symmetry > by going the other way? We don't, it does throw an error. See rproc_validate(). The error-checking is somewhat asymmetric. Any remoteproc requiring attach behavior is supposed to be setting the rproc state as RPROC_DETACHED. The remoteproc core state-machine is dictated by that value between start and attach. rproc_validate() does check the required ops between RPROC_OFFLINE and RPROC_DETACHED states. Do you mean use return -EINVAL by default in both the wrappers? Atm, you will never exercise this particular code paths in either of these wrapper functions, because there are checks enforced even before these wrappers are invoked. regards Suman > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> +} >> + >> static inline >> int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) >> { >> -- >> 2.30.1 >> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-28 16:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-05-22 0:03 [PATCH 0/6] K3 R5F & DSP IPC-only mode support Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 1/6] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_detach_device() wrapper Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-28 4:17 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 4:17 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 16:17 ` Suman Anna [this message] 2021-05-28 16:17 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 2/6] remoteproc: Add support for detach-only during shutdown Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-28 4:11 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 4:11 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 16:40 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-28 16:40 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-01 17:15 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-01 17:15 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 3/6] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in start Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-01 17:22 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-01 17:22 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 4/6] remoteproc: k3-r5: Add support for IPC-only mode for all R5Fs Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-01 17:51 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-01 17:51 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-02 15:53 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-02 15:53 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 5/6] remoteproc: k3-dsp: Refactor mbox request code in start Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-02 16:04 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-02 16:04 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-05-22 0:03 ` [PATCH 6/6] remoteproc: k3-dsp: Add support for IPC-only mode for all K3 DSPs Suman Anna 2021-05-22 0:03 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-28 4:36 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 4:36 ` Bjorn Andersson 2021-05-28 17:04 ` Suman Anna 2021-05-28 17:04 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-02 16:07 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-02 16:07 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-03 14:57 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-03 14:57 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-07 16:33 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-07 16:33 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-16 15:00 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-16 15:00 ` Suman Anna 2021-06-22 22:51 ` Mathieu Poirier 2021-06-22 22:51 ` Mathieu Poirier
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=7b5556d8-e92c-f633-e58a-cdd71c25df29@ti.com \ --to=s-anna@ti.com \ --cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \ --cc=kristo@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lokeshvutla@ti.com \ --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.