From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
Cc: Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@st.com>,
"bjorn.andersson@linaro.org" <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
"ohad@wizery.com" <ohad@wizery.com>,
"peng.fan@nxp.com" <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>,
Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@st.com>,
"linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/17] remoteproc: Allocate synchronisation state machine
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 14:46:55 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200401204655.GC17383@xps15> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abbe9f2c-11db-3b53-fa21-115c18c40d8f@ti.com>
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 06:20:37PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 3/27/20 8:47 AM, Loic PALLARDY wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> >> Sent: mardi 24 mars 2020 22:46
> >> To: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org
> >> Cc: ohad@wizery.com; Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@st.com>; s-
> >> anna@ti.com; peng.fan@nxp.com; Arnaud POULIQUEN
> >> <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>; Fabien DESSENNE
> >> <fabien.dessenne@st.com>; linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: [PATCH v2 08/17] remoteproc: Allocate synchronisation state
> >> machine
> >>
> >> This patch allocates a synchronisation state machine, either provided or
> >> not by users, in order to enact the proper behavior requested by the
> >> platform or specific scenarios.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 59
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index 02dbb826aa29..1578a9c70422 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1955,6 +1955,7 @@ static void rproc_type_release(struct device *dev)
> >> kfree(rproc->firmware);
> >> kfree(rproc->ops);
> >> kfree(rproc->sync_ops);
> >> + kfree(rproc->sync_states);
> >> kfree(rproc);
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -2035,6 +2036,59 @@ static int rproc_alloc_sync_ops(struct rproc *rproc,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int rproc_alloc_sync_states(struct rproc *rproc,
> >> + const struct rproc_ops *boot_ops,
> >> + const struct rproc_ops *sync_ops,
> >> + struct rproc_sync_states *sync_states)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rproc_sync_states *st;
> >> +
> >> + /* At least one set of operation is needed */
> >> + if (!boot_ops && !sync_ops)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + /* We have a synchronisation state machine, no need to build one */
> >> + if (sync_states) {
> >> + st = kmemdup(sync_states, sizeof(*st), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!st)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >
> > I think a check between sync_states and boot_ops/sync_ops may be needed here
> > even if it is platform driver responsibility to provide coherent configuration
> > As soon as one of the sync_states is set at true, sync_ops must be provided
> > As soon as one of the sync_states is set at false, boot_ops must be provided
> >
> > Regards,
> > Loic
> >
> >> + /* Nothing else to do */
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* Allocate synchronisation state machine */
> >> + st = kzalloc(sizeof(*st), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Hmm, do you really want to allocate these dynamically? You are
> allocating/initializing these no matter what, and I see these as no
> different from the likes of has_iommu or auto_boot. Why not just add the
> struct as a regular member instead of a pointer?
That's a valid point.
>
> >> + if (!st)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We have a boot_ops and no sync_ops - build a state machine that
> >> + * does _not_ synchronise with an MCU.
> >> + */
> >> + if (boot_ops && !sync_ops) {
> >> + st->on_init = st->after_stop = st->after_crash = false;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We have a sync_ops and an no boot_ops - build a state machine
> >> that
> >> + * _only_ synchronises with an MCU.
> >> + */
> >> + if (sync_ops && !boot_ops) {
> >> + st->on_init = st->after_stop = st->after_crash = true;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> +out:
> >> + rproc->sync_with_mcu = st->on_init;
>
> This is not needed because of the rproc_set_mcu_sync_state call below.
You are correct.
>
> regards
> Suman
>
> >> + /* And the synchronisation state machine to use */
> >> + rproc->sync_states = st;
> >> + /* Tell the core what to do when initialising */
> >> + rproc_set_mcu_sync_state(rproc, RPROC_SYNC_STATE_INIT);
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc, const char *name,
> >> const struct rproc_ops *boot_ops,
> >> const struct rproc_ops *sync_ops,
> >> @@ -2065,7 +2119,10 @@ static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
> >> const char *name,
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - return 0;
> >> + /* Finally allocate the synchronisation state machine */
> >> + ret = rproc_alloc_sync_states(rproc, boot_ops, sync_ops,
> >> sync_states);
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /**
> >> --
> >> 2.20.1
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-01 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 21:45 [PATCH v2 00/17] remoteproc: Add support for synchronisation with MCU Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 01/17] remoteproc: Add new operation and state machine for MCU synchronisation Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-30 22:46 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-30 22:49 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 21:53 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 21:38 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 21:38 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 02/17] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_set_mcu_sync_state() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-30 22:55 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 03/17] remoteproc: Split firmware name allocation from rproc_alloc() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 11:05 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 19:47 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 21:58 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 04/17] remoteproc: Split rproc_ops " Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-30 19:54 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 05/17] remoteproc: Get rid of tedious error path Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-30 20:31 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 06/17] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 11:10 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 20:38 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 20:29 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 21:53 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 21:53 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-30 23:07 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 07/17] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc_state_machine() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 13:12 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 23:10 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 20:41 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 18:35 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 18:35 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-30 23:13 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 08/17] remoteproc: Allocate synchronisation state machine Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 13:47 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 23:16 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-30 23:20 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 20:46 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 09/17] remoteproc: Call the right core function based on synchronisation state Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 15:10 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-02 20:16 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 18:48 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 18:48 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 10/17] remoteproc: Decouple firmware load and remoteproc booting Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 21:27 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 11/17] remoteproc: Repurpose function rproc_trigger_auto_boot() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 21:32 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 12/17] remoteproc: Rename function rproc_fw_boot() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 21:42 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:45 ` [PATCH v2 13/17] remoteproc: Introducting new functions to start and stop an MCU Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 18:08 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-31 21:46 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 21:55 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-24 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 14/17] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_trigger_recovery() Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 21:52 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-02 20:35 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 19:02 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 19:02 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 15/17] remoteproc: Correctly deal with MCU synchronisation when changing FW image Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 13:50 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 23:21 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 22:14 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 20:55 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-22 21:29 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-22 21:29 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-22 22:56 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-22 22:56 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 16/17] remoteproc: Correctly deal with MCU synchronisation when changing state Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 14:04 ` Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-30 23:49 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-31 22:35 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 21:29 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 20:55 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 20:55 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-02 20:42 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-09 20:40 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-09 20:40 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-24 21:46 ` [PATCH v2 17/17] remoteproc: Make MCU synchronisation state changes on stop and crashed Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-27 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 00/17] remoteproc: Add support for synchronisation with MCU Loic PALLARDY
2020-03-31 22:51 ` Suman Anna
2020-04-01 21:39 ` 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=20200401204655.GC17383@xps15 \
--to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=arnaud.pouliquen@st.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=fabien.dessenne@st.com \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loic.pallardy@st.com \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
--cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
--cc=s-anna@ti.com \
/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).