From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@codeaurora.org>
Cc: agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, ohad@wizery.com,
tsoni@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rishabhb@codeaurora.org, psodagud@codeaurora.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] remoteproc: qcom: Add notification types to SSR
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:59:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200227215940.GC20116@xps15> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1582167465-2549-7-git-send-email-sidgup@codeaurora.org>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:57:45PM -0800, Siddharth Gupta wrote:
> The SSR subdevice only adds callback for the unprepare event. Add callbacks
> for unprepare, start and prepare events. The client driver for a particular
> remoteproc might be interested in knowing the status of the remoteproc
> while undergoing SSR, not just when the remoteproc has finished shutting
> down.
>
> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Gupta <sidgup@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
> index 6714f27..6f04a5b 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.c
> @@ -183,9 +183,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_remove_smd_subdev);
> *
> * Returns pointer to srcu notifier head on success, ERR_PTR on failure.
> *
> - * This registers the @notify function as handler for restart notifications. As
> - * remote processors are stopped this function will be called, with the rproc
> - * pointer passed as a parameter.
> + * This registers the @notify function as handler for powerup/shutdown
> + * notifications. This function will be invoked inside the callbacks registered
> + * for the ssr subdevice, with the rproc pointer passed as a parameter.
> */
> void *qcom_register_ssr_notifier(struct rproc *rproc, struct notifier_block *nb)
> {
> @@ -227,11 +227,39 @@ int qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier(void *notify, struct notifier_block *nb)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_unregister_ssr_notifier);
>
> +static int ssr_notify_prepare(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
> +{
> + struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr = to_ssr_subdev(subdev);
> +
> + srcu_notifier_call_chain(ssr->rproc_notif_list,
> + RPROC_BEFORE_POWERUP, (void *)ssr->name);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int ssr_notify_start(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
> +{
> + struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr = to_ssr_subdev(subdev);
> +
> + srcu_notifier_call_chain(ssr->rproc_notif_list,
> + RPROC_AFTER_POWERUP, (void *)ssr->name);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void ssr_notify_stop(struct rproc_subdev *subdev, bool crashed)
> +{
> + struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr = to_ssr_subdev(subdev);
> +
> + srcu_notifier_call_chain(ssr->rproc_notif_list,
> + RPROC_BEFORE_SHUTDOWN, (void *)ssr->name);
> +}
> +
> +
> static void ssr_notify_unprepare(struct rproc_subdev *subdev)
> {
> struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr = to_ssr_subdev(subdev);
>
> - srcu_notifier_call_chain(ssr->rproc_notif_list, 0, (void *)ssr->name);
> + srcu_notifier_call_chain(ssr->rproc_notif_list,
> + RPROC_AFTER_SHUTDOWN, (void *)ssr->name);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -248,6 +276,9 @@ void qcom_add_ssr_subdev(struct rproc *rproc, struct qcom_rproc_ssr *ssr,
> {
> ssr->name = ssr_name;
> ssr->subdev.name = kstrdup("ssr_notifs", GFP_KERNEL);
> + ssr->subdev.prepare = ssr_notify_prepare;
> + ssr->subdev.start = ssr_notify_start;
> + ssr->subdev.stop = ssr_notify_stop;
Now that I have a better understanding of what this patchset is doing, I realise
my comments in patch 04 won't work. To differentiate the subdevs of an rproc I
suggest to wrap them in a generic structure with a type and an enum. That way
you can differenciate between subdevices without having to add to the core.
That being said, I don't understand what patches 5 and 6 are doing...
Registering with the global ssr_notifiers allowed to gracefully shutdown all the
MCUs in the system when one of them would go down. But now that we are using
the notifier on a per MCU, I really don't see why each subdev couldn't implement
the right prepare/start/stop functions.
Am I missing something here?
> ssr->subdev.unprepare = ssr_notify_unprepare;
> ssr->rproc_notif_list = kzalloc(sizeof(struct srcu_notifier_head),
> GFP_KERNEL);
> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> index e2f60cc..4be4478 100644
> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> @@ -449,6 +449,21 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
> };
>
> /**
> + * enum rproc_notif_type - Different stages of remoteproc notifications
> + * @RPROC_BEFORE_SHUTDOWN: unprepare stage of remoteproc
> + * @RPROC_AFTER_SHUTDOWN: stop stage of remoteproc
> + * @RPROC_BEFORE_POWERUP: prepare stage of remoteproc
> + * @RPROC_AFTER_POWERUP: start stage of remoteproc
> + */
> +enum rproc_notif_type {
> + RPROC_BEFORE_SHUTDOWN,
> + RPROC_AFTER_SHUTDOWN,
> + RPROC_BEFORE_POWERUP,
> + RPROC_AFTER_POWERUP,
> + RPROC_MAX
> +};
> +
> +/**
> * struct rproc - represents a physical remote processor device
> * @node: list node of this rproc object
> * @domain: iommu domain
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-27 21:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-20 2:57 [PATCH 0/6] remoteproc: qcom: Add callbacks for remoteproc events Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 1/6] remoteproc: sysmon: Add ability to send type of notification Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 2/6] remoteproc: sysmon: Add notifications for events Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 3/6] remoteproc: sysmon: Inform current rproc about all active rprocs Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-27 18:47 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 4/6] drivers: remoteproc: Add name field for every subdevice Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-27 20:14 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 5/6] remoteproc: qcom: Add per subsystem SSR notification Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-20 2:57 ` [PATCH 6/6] remoteproc: qcom: Add notification types to SSR Siddharth Gupta
2020-02-27 21:59 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2020-02-28 0:00 ` rishabhb
2020-02-28 18:38 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-02 20:54 ` rishabhb
2020-03-03 18:05 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-03-03 23:30 ` rishabhb
2020-03-09 17:34 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-04-02 1:01 ` Siddharth Gupta
2020-04-02 17:47 ` Mathieu Poirier
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=20200227215940.GC20116@xps15 \
--to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=agross@kernel.org \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
--cc=psodagud@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rishabhb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sidgup@codeaurora.org \
--cc=tsoni@codeaurora.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).