From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, ohad@wizery.com,
loic.pallardy@st.com, s-anna@ti.com,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] remoteproc: Call core functions based on synchronisation flag
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 16:10:47 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200505221047.GC18333@xps15> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f85f227-e244-8136-b0f4-0b6ab167d852@st.com>
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> hi Mathieu,
>
> On 4/30/20 9:57 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:27:27PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/24/20 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> Call the right core function based on whether we should synchronise
> >>> with a remote processor or boot it from scratch.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> index dda7044c4b3e..3985c084b184 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> @@ -72,6 +72,12 @@ static inline bool rproc_needs_syncing(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> static inline
> >>> int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->sanity_check)
> >>> return rproc->ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> >>
> >> Regarding this patch I'm trying to determine whether it makes sense to have ops or
> >> sync_ops set to null. Your[v3 01/14] patch commit explains that ops can be null in case of
> >> synchronisation.
> >> But it seems deprecated with the sync_ops introduction...
> >
> > Your comment made me go over the logic again... If rproc_needs_syncing() is
> > true then we necessarily have a sync_ops. If rproc_needs_syncing() is false,
> > there too we automatically have an ops. As such and as you point out, checking
> > for rproc->sync_ops and rproc-ops is probably useless.
> An Additional test in rproc_set_state_machine should be sufficient, something like that:
> /* rproc->ops struct is mandatory if at least one sync flag is false */
> if (!rproc->ops && !(sync_flags.on_init &&
> sync_flags.after_stop && sync_flags.after_crash))
> return -EINVAL;
Right, something like that.
>
> >
> >>
> >> And if sync_ops is null, is it still necessary to define a remoteproc device?
> >
> > Not sure I understand your point here but with the reasonning from above it
> > is probably moot anyway.
> Just to mention that a platform device with ops and ops_sync null seems like nonsense
We agree.
>
> Regards,
> Arnaud
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Arnad
> >>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -81,6 +87,12 @@ int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> static inline
> >>> u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
> >>> return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -90,6 +102,12 @@ u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> static inline
> >>> int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->load)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->load(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->load)
> >>> return rproc->ops->load(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -98,6 +116,12 @@ int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->parse_fw)
> >>> return rproc->ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -108,6 +132,13 @@ static inline
> >>> int rproc_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void *rsc, int offset,
> >>> int avail)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type,
> >>> + rsc, offset, avail);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
> >>> return rproc->ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type, rsc, offset,
> >>> avail);
> >>> @@ -119,6 +150,13 @@ static inline
> >>> struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> >>> const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc,
> >>> + fw);
> >>> + return NULL;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> >>> return rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -127,6 +165,12 @@ struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->start)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->start(rproc);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->start)
> >>> return rproc->ops->start(rproc);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -135,6 +179,12 @@ static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_stop_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->stop)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->stop(rproc);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->stop)
> >>> return rproc->ops->stop(rproc);
> >>>
> >>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-05 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-24 20:01 [PATCH v3 00/14] remoteproc: Add support for synchronisaton with rproc Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 01/14] remoteproc: Make core operations optional Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 16:18 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 19:39 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-05 22:16 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-08 19:09 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 02/14] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-05 22:31 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-08 19:37 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 03/14] remoteproc: Add new operation and flags for synchronistation Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 16:38 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 19:49 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 0:22 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-08 21:01 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-14 1:32 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-15 19:24 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-19 0:55 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-20 22:06 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-21 5:21 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-21 21:55 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 04/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_boot() Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 05/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 0:33 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-08 21:27 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-14 2:10 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-15 19:46 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-19 0:22 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 06/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_trigger_auto_boot() Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 17:00 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 07/14] remoteproc: Introducting new start and stop functions Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 0:42 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 08/14] remoteproc: Call core functions based on synchronisation flag Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-28 17:27 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 19:57 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-04 11:14 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-05-05 22:10 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 09/14] remoteproc: Deal with synchronisation when crashing Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-29 7:44 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 20:11 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 1:01 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-08 21:47 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 10/14] remoteproc: Deal with synchronisation when shutting down Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-29 8:19 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 20:23 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-04 11:34 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-05-05 22:03 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 7:51 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-05-06 1:10 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 11/14] remoteproc: Deal with synchronisation when changing FW image Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-29 8:52 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 20:32 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-06 1:27 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 12/14] remoteproc: Introducing function rproc_set_state_machine() Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-29 9:22 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-29 14:38 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 20:51 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-04 12:00 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-04-30 20:42 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-04 11:57 ` Arnaud POULIQUEN
2020-05-05 21:43 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 13/14] remoteproc: Document " Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-24 20:01 ` [PATCH v3 14/14] remoteproc: Expose synchronisation flags via debugfs Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-18 13:28 ` [PATCH v3 00/14] remoteproc: Add support for synchronisaton with rproc Peng Fan
2020-05-18 16:29 ` 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=20200505221047.GC18333@xps15 \
--to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=arnaud.pouliquen@st.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loic.pallardy@st.com \
--cc=ohad@wizery.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).