From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28ACCC47254 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04110206FA for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 22:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="H4C/8Je6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729328AbgEEWKw (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 18:10:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39002 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727089AbgEEWKv (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2020 18:10:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x442.google.com (mail-pf1-x442.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC86C061A10 for ; Tue, 5 May 2020 15:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x442.google.com with SMTP id 145so1587467pfw.13 for ; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:10:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=d+NhRWsLm2x5A30r1s+qBjiXMgEROv/YxDTJuQSoy+Y=; b=H4C/8Je6JGlahL9mfnwrlCwDUUwCyIWJbrttwPRwkAtgaROaMfI5vPy18zTDRdyE00 qjQLnyChHmpeuRkV4tw578URIbKwbbVYjJaKEJ9R1mluxvyroz23cIZ2hz0DwJ1gEfDh gqOoxYVmJzbT7LM0ipWGU/PRbMUXfkonPLM1GOXZ6pelPMczpl/oS4cHmht22IVBUdqU jIpyH4lC4blb4Z5Y5KPQ2LcX1Wiv2sv5kfroCP3d38i3r0qmWg7nyOR1puW2ntb6tBrS iUrjwqMvjEF+nSQ813yA3rtdpWrSU72zHMRcw9GOm8+vpXER18tO/8mQNQWBSjhzAUXq Uquw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=d+NhRWsLm2x5A30r1s+qBjiXMgEROv/YxDTJuQSoy+Y=; b=tvuclWdZ2OEmRPrLDKBS2j2fb8H1qHxYu/z+OpZLvAVL8VXsWDLIJE8JVYDfdUZtaM 9jl9dPMFEWCCxFR249P22eUHzsPjBcHhAaQetYEbwsAv+LOxYG41WDQROuRwn0pljCZU NXVAmTaPTLaJh6N2Qc8nZIk4XfduSpcwnRleR7u2OOXiSba0pxGb/7MJb5wO6+JbBI7N QT2tWsROvqrPGktUCPO2af2htkplNlWQ6Y4KTmzfDv9eHae2tiktgXcP5KBo8HtlO2Jf NKs0WDZbKmnUsFpCKPEUCsnZjYrqLR57NJXWOaVWEUCerSpOYUuRL2FbD33/mKCq7E7F HxIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYCXzYjdQ/Ro8x/x1h0WdPtK4tFGSH2xaiwBw2CFMPI0WS9RgR7 RSW1+0wuFQ0OyQmnxzXWMAK2tM8XN+o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKSwE5gLEiw1GKWGoeoiP/f2TNQCODhA/ksQA6kq3+8WbOjY6TgPPe4bbxzA3BCexdiRL6k9A== X-Received: by 2002:a63:150:: with SMTP id 77mr4386172pgb.136.1588716649770; Tue, 05 May 2020 15:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps15 (S0106002369de4dac.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.8.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f27sm97404pga.51.2020.05.05.15.10.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 05 May 2020 15:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 16:10:47 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Arnaud POULIQUEN 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 Message-ID: <20200505221047.GC18333@xps15> References: <20200424200135.28825-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <20200424200135.28825-9-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <20200430195749.GC17031@xps15> <6f85f227-e244-8136-b0f4-0b6ab167d852@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6f85f227-e244-8136-b0f4-0b6ab167d852@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-remoteproc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org 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 > >>> --- > >>> 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); > >>> > >>>