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=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,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 D12DFC2B9F4 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B527D6141E for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:27:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229882AbhFYH3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 03:29:37 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([185.132.182.106]:16656 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229616AbhFYH3e (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 03:29:34 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0046668.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 15P7IPas013167; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:11 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=selector1; bh=BTGKsvUSUhdoLzovWKZXPnQ+NIY4Pr0YS4UnDtP45Qc=; b=27dvD5Pvxn0AstuEmfukPmWZnGdIGCNCl8F/JGOGCoquXrLtfU9s+SK0eDkff6R7MX1m nBJb8MglXkKiKlNO1KzIySJcY71abu//Rs6WemUceNWII+8znJcjl6URIx95Z1+saoXF LpK2/xNgu13EFeBBK15fjAi6y2IKE5ne3TZ90nkWsKYip+ObX+0I9RvdFptLRPuPnbWg rLaT3tMvwkqAg9wEGSM3oKx5ak5NV1by3ppBDTsSsJhZ791pRhpaXOiQHrZmUE3hbVhD C3UiyLOgHe9wc4SHrVAlPkrI/Ktw1YnLMlwSnIw6agSrPTlD+rVsw5lQ5V1mTh1vEZwL tg== Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 39d22m2esw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:11 +0200 Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 6626E10002A; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (sfhdag2node3.st.com [10.75.127.6]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 507D2214D0B; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lmecxl0889.lme.st.com (10.75.127.48) by SFHDAG2NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:09 +0200 Subject: Re: remoteproc DMA API abuse status To: Mathieu Poirier , Christoph Hellwig CC: Ohad Ben-Cohen , Bjorn Andersson , , References: <20210623134307.GA29505@lst.de> <20210624193514.GA1090275@p14s> From: Arnaud POULIQUEN Message-ID: <011dac94-cfe0-d276-980a-b8ffe1447521@foss.st.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:27:09 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210624193514.GA1090275@p14s> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.75.127.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SFHDAG1NODE2.st.com (10.75.127.2) To SFHDAG2NODE3.st.com (10.75.127.6) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.790 definitions=2021-06-25_02:2021-06-24,2021-06-25 signatures=0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Mathieu, On 6/24/21 9:35 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Good day Christoph, > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:43:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> Hi remoteproc maintainers, >> >> did you make any progress to get remoteproc out of creating fake >> devices that fake their dma ops status and the abuse of >> dma_declare_coherent_memory in removeproc_virtio? I remember we had >> a discussion on this a long time ago, and there was an unfinished >> patchset to change the memory pool handling. What happened to all that? > > I believe the conversation and patchset you are referring to are pre-dating my > time in this subsystem. To make sure I am looking at the right thing, can you > (or anyone else) point me to that discussion and related patches? 2 references: 1)Previous discussion thread on the topic: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/AOKowLclCbOCKxyiJ71WeNyuAAj2q8EUtxrXbyky5E@cp7-web-042.plabs.ch/ 2) My patchset related to the refactoring of remoteproc virtio which tries to address the point by creating a remoteproc platform driver and declaring a virtio subnode in the device tree remoteproc node. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/16/1817 No time yet on my side to come back on the patchset :( Regards, Arnaud > > Thanks, > Mathieu >