From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
Clement Leger <cleger@kalray.eu>,
Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>,
Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>,
Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>,
<linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: introduce version element into resource type field
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 14:06:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b338480e-c586-f988-f5b6-784551b7beb6@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200521175421.GI408178@builder.lan>
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.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 8 +++++++-
>> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
> [..]
>> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> index 77788a4bb94e..526d3cb45e37 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
>> @@ -86,7 +86,13 @@ struct resource_table {
>> * this header, and it should be parsed according to the resource type.
>> */
>> struct fw_rsc_hdr {
>> - u32 type;
>> + union {
>> + u32 type;
>> + struct {
>> + u16 t;
>> + u16 v;
>> + } st;
>
> I see your "type" is little endian...
Yeah, definitely a draw-back if we want to support big-endian rprocs. Do
you have any remoteprocs following big-endian? All TI remoteprocs are
little-endian except for really old ones.
regards
Suman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-21 19:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 20:46 [PATCH 0/4] Update K3 DSP remoteproc driver for C71x DSPs Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:46 ` [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: remoteproc: k3-dsp: Update bindings " Suman Anna
2020-03-31 21:56 ` Rob Herring
2020-03-25 20:46 ` [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: introduce version element into resource type field Suman Anna
2020-05-21 17:54 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-21 19:06 ` Suman Anna [this message]
2020-05-21 19:21 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-21 19:29 ` Suman Anna
2020-05-21 19:41 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-21 19:52 ` Suman Anna
2020-03-25 20:47 ` [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add support for a new 64-bit trace version Suman Anna
2020-05-21 18:04 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-21 19:42 ` Suman Anna
2020-05-22 16:54 ` Suman Anna
2020-05-22 17:33 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-05-22 18:03 ` Clément Leger
2020-05-22 18:10 ` Clément Leger
2020-05-22 18:59 ` Suman Anna
2020-05-22 19:28 ` Clément Leger
2020-03-25 20:47 ` [PATCH 4/4] remoteproc/k3-dsp: Add support for C71x DSPs Suman Anna
2020-04-27 19:54 ` Suman Anna
2020-05-21 15:57 ` [PATCH 0/4] Update K3 DSP remoteproc driver " Suman Anna
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=b338480e-c586-f988-f5b6-784551b7beb6@ti.com \
--to=s-anna@ti.com \
--cc=arnaud.pouliquen@st.com \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=cleger@kalray.eu \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loic.pallardy@st.com \
--cc=lokeshvutla@ti.com \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/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).