Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] remoteproc: Make core operations optional

From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: ohad@wizery.com, loic.pallardy@st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@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 01/14] remoteproc: Make core operations optional
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 13:09:11 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200508190911.GA4526@xps15> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200505221608.GA2329931@builder.lan>

Hi Bjorn,

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:16:08PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> 
> > When synchronizing with a remote processor, it is entirely possible that
> > the remoteproc core is not the life cycle manager.  In such a case core
> > operations don't exist and should not be called.
> > 
> 
> Why would the core call these functions if it knows the remote is in a
> state where it doesn't need these?

This is the reasoning that came out of a conversation Arnaud and I had.  We are
all on the same page.

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> > index b389dc79da81..59fc871743c7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> > @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ rproc_find_carveout_by_name(struct rproc *rproc, const char *name, ...);
> >  static inline
> >  int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >  {
> > -	if (rproc->ops->sanity_check)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->sanity_check)
> >  		return rproc->ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ 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->ops->get_boot_addr)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
> >  		return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ 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->ops->load)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->load)
> >  		return rproc->ops->load(rproc, fw);
> >  
> >  	return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ 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->ops->parse_fw)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->parse_fw)
> >  		return rproc->ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static inline
> >  int rproc_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void *rsc, int offset,
> >  		     int avail)
> >  {
> > -	if (rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
> >  		return rproc->ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type, rsc, offset,
> >  					      avail);
> >  
> > @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static inline
> >  struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> >  						   const struct firmware *fw)
> >  {
> > -	if (rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> > +	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> >  		return rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> >  
> >  	return NULL;
> > -- 
> > 2.20.1
> > 