From: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@nxp.com>
Cc: Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com>,
"shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
"s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
"kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>,
"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: imx: Skip return value check for some special SCU firmware APIs
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 11:06:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190927090609.fyxdekkzrco7memt@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR0402MB391675F9BF6FCA315B124BEBF5810@DB3PR0402MB3916.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Anson, Leonard,
On 19-09-27 01:20, Anson Huang wrote:
> Hi, Leonard
>
> > On 2019-09-26 1:06 PM, Marco Felsch wrote:
> > > On 19-09-26 08:03, Anson Huang wrote:
> > >>> On 19-09-25 18:07, Anson Huang wrote:
> > >>>> The SCU firmware does NOT always have return value stored in
> > >>>> message header's function element even the API has response data,
> > >>>> those special APIs are defined as void function in SCU firmware, so
> > >>>> they should be treated as return success always.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +static const struct imx_sc_rpc_msg whitelist[] = {
> > >>>> + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func =
> > >>> IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_UNIQUE_ID },
> > >>>> + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func =
> > >>>> +IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_GET_BUTTON_STATUS }, };
> > >>>
> > >>> Is this going to be extended in the near future? I see some upcoming
> > >>> problems here if someone uses a different scu-fw<->kernel
> > >>> combination as nxp would suggest.
> > >>
> > >> Could be, but I checked the current APIs, ONLY these 2 will be used
> > >> in Linux kernel, so I ONLY add these 2 APIs for now.
> > >
> > > Okay.
> > >
> > >> However, after rethink, maybe we should add another imx_sc_rpc API
> > >> for those special APIs? To avoid checking it for all the APIs called which
> > may impact some performance.
> > >> Still under discussion, if you have better idea, please advise, thanks!
> >
> > My suggestion is to refactor the code and add a new API for the this "no
> > error value" convention. Internally they can call a common function with
> > flags.
>
> If I understand your point correctly, that means the loop check of whether the API
> is with "no error value" for every API still NOT be skipped, it is just refactoring the code,
> right?
How makes this things easier?
> > > Adding a special api shouldn't be the right fix. Imagine if someone
> > > (not a nxp-developer) wants to add a new driver. How could he be
> > > expected to know which api he should use. The better abbroach would be
> > > to fix the scu-fw instead of adding quirks..
>
> Yes, fixing SCU FW is the best solution, but we have talked to SCU FW owner, the SCU
> FW released has been finalized, so the API implementation can NOT be changed, but
> they will pay attention to this issue for new added APIs later. That means the number
> of APIs having this issue a very limited.
This means those APIs which already have this bug will not be fixed?
IMHO this sounds a bit weird since this is a changeable peace of code ;)
> > Right now developers who want to make SCFW calls in upstream need to
> > define the message struct in their driver based on protocol documentation.
> > This includes:
> >
> > * Binary layout of the message (a packed struct)
> > * If the message has a response (already a bool flag)
> > * If an error code is returned (this patch adds support for it)
Why should I specify if a error code is returned?
Regards,
Marco
> > Since callers are already exposed to the binary protocol exposing them to
> > minor quirks of the calling convention also seems reasonable. Having the
> > low-level IPC code peek at message IDs seems like a hack; this belong at a
> > slightly higher level.
>
> A little confused, so what you suggested is to add make the imx_scu_call_rpc()
> becomes the "slightly higher level" API, then in this API, check the message IDs
> to decide whether to return error value, then calls a new API which will have
> the low-level IPC code, the this new API will have a flag passed from imx_scu_call_rpc()
> function, am I right?
>
> Anson
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
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:[~2019-09-27 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-25 10:07 [PATCH] firmware: imx: Skip return value check for some special SCU firmware APIs Anson Huang
2019-09-25 13:13 ` Leonard Crestez
2019-09-26 0:34 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-26 7:59 ` Marco Felsch
2019-09-26 8:03 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-26 10:05 ` Marco Felsch
2019-09-26 13:25 ` Leonard Crestez
2019-09-27 1:20 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-27 9:06 ` Marco Felsch [this message]
2019-09-27 9:27 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-27 11:22 ` Leonard Crestez
2019-09-29 1:12 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-27 11:16 ` Leonard Crestez
2019-09-30 7:28 ` Leonard Crestez
2019-09-30 7:42 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-30 7:54 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-30 8:14 ` Marco Felsch
2019-09-30 8:32 ` Anson Huang
2019-09-30 10:02 ` Marco Felsch
2019-10-07 1:21 ` Anson Huang
2019-10-07 8:07 ` Marco Felsch
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=20190927090609.fyxdekkzrco7memt@pengutronix.de \
--to=m.felsch@pengutronix.de \
--cc=aisheng.dong@nxp.com \
--cc=anson.huang@nxp.com \
--cc=festevam@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=leonard.crestez@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-imx@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).