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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 19D17C433E1 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:29:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3394207D3 for ; Thu, 21 May 2020 19:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="TZPonNeT" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729740AbgEUT32 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 15:29:28 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:39868 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729625AbgEUT32 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2020 15:29:28 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04LJTC58043109; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1590089352; bh=5cVvI02ABWumpoVFjgbtGBb7mRTK+933hQtYxfCzASg=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TZPonNeTFavlWc0GMMWmkDac2ZYs5xQd9GeA8E7KLrefaT+Udbnq7bXlJMCi8y0Yn ZgW9xJMzipd7hq8Mc61geOed1EZcJBFsS7aQb1E9C9LePJ3gek2LT03HTLK/N7+nGo KR0KHjFEAGziMGVf9v2uCoxTMyoLcc3zzMgoXb6k= Received: from DFLE100.ent.ti.com (dfle100.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.21]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04LJTC9c127528 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:12 -0500 Received: from DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) by DFLE100.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:12 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DFLE113.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:12 -0500 Received: from [10.250.48.148] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04LJTB1p074206; Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: introduce version element into resource type field To: Bjorn Andersson CC: Rob Herring , Mathieu Poirier , Clement Leger , Loic Pallardy , Arnaud Pouliquen , Lokesh Vutla , , , , References: <20200325204701.16862-1-s-anna@ti.com> <20200325204701.16862-3-s-anna@ti.com> <20200521175421.GI408178@builder.lan> <20200521192146.GO408178@builder.lan> From: Suman Anna Message-ID: <57ae5678-fd0a-07a8-6165-a2cf7ccdef88@ti.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:29:11 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200521192146.GO408178@builder.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-remoteproc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org On 5/21/20 2:21 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu 21 May 12:06 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote: > >> Hi Bjorn, >> >> On 5/21/20 12:54 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Wed 25 Mar 13:46 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote: >>> >>>> The current remoteproc core has supported only 32-bit remote >>>> processors and as such some of the current resource structures >>>> may not scale well for 64-bit remote processors, and would >>>> require new versions of resource types. Each resource is currently >>>> identified by a 32-bit type field. Introduce the concept of version >>>> for these resource types by overloading this 32-bit type field >>>> into two 16-bit version and type fields with the existing resources >>>> behaving as version 0 thereby providing backward compatibility. >>>> >>>> The version field is passed as an additional argument to each of >>>> the handler functions, and all the existing handlers are updated >>>> accordingly. Each specific handler will be updated on a need basis >>>> when a new version of the resource type is added. >>>> >>> >>> I really would prefer that we add additional types for the new >>> structures, neither side will be compatible with new versions without >>> enhancements to their respective implementations anyways. >> >> OK. >> >>> >>>> An alternate way would be to introduce the new types as completely >>>> new resource types which would require additional customization of >>>> the resource handlers based on the 32-bit or 64-bit mode of a remote >>>> processor, and introduction of an additional mode flag to the rproc >>>> structure. >>>> >>> >>> What would this "mode" indicate? If it's version 0 or 1? >> >> No, for indicating if the remoteproc is 32-bit or 64-bit and adjust the >> loading handlers if the resource types need to be segregated accordingly. >> > > Sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Wouldn't your 64-bit > remote processor need different firmware from your 32-bit processor > anyways, if you want to support the wider resource? And you would pack > your firmware with the appropriate resource types? Yes, that's correct. > > Afaict the bit width of your remote processor, busses or memory is > unrelated to the choice of number of bits used to express things in the > resource table. I would have to add the new resource type to the loading_handlers right, so it is a question of whether we want to impose any restrictions in remoteproc core or not from supporting a certain resource type (eg: I don't expect RSC_TRACE entries on 64-bit processors). regards Suman