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=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 4CB43C433E1 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 19:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D2E20728 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 19:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="Q9Q88arg" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726261AbgEOTqz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2020 15:46:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56386 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726206AbgEOTqy (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2020 15:46:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x444.google.com (mail-pf1-x444.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::444]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A31D0C05BD0A for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x444.google.com with SMTP id y18so1470654pfl.9 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:46:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qHFnsbgrSS4StOIenlkUVZXooyvIhnf9sBRBZNkUxwQ=; b=Q9Q88argmmjbLp2fCN86SmyNT6CTlbnyCjllZlrZmXbFTt2I/vXcG0UiFQsfrdl2M6 omiB3E2tkak1x2S0KzduyTbK2fpc6aIVEiToqOSzO5Z+KGQ/ixVPmoCKgyyeY85ePBaZ pR8MmAGbN98jOc7nK+pEDqmQRXPj+ectonE1N+8xP9A3vbhEGmTaW++SFt9o11+b6zFz R5QI94xI/7RY7OYhrD62UfxNl7se7rr8oiNahRoy6nU2FrMvw39NlcvKMAWvIIuuFoOf VtaK2gmWlYvf5m1f2PLZGb6SUOhU/0wS9q1JRZR3J5GSKc6msxjexbNnEYjjokWWaTZW 8ccg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qHFnsbgrSS4StOIenlkUVZXooyvIhnf9sBRBZNkUxwQ=; b=tg9XFKkrpS4wBMbL7i3xznpJV4CRc3A/wHdhlXsM6uznpOB53oQ32WgXAHvML0XETp RAkx3T3Ki57GutdlV0KcEElky5bPseT2Eeo4mVozgDc6mMxGiLEhq1isaUjtdKDCRRa3 RbiWvCQKY1pNe+1LRq+31+xOweU/nBHFU1JolZ86MPreQ8uxnETLPolWALCvk8Gh7kRP q/QC4XeYPwETM/+XxyNloftL1lqzIRDP+BK2Lxqj0MsZ0+C2iDdXwwdBNidLHzzCIws1 lLhH2Fgz7E5Wf9a2SioIkDAkIFKmFW06993cuB4PSWtm6BWTHzai3G0yd9Ep1cLyPmxD KI9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532EYYOHbf2FKNfIoKxetnlW3E4srXrlm8AcXTUa1dHoRwTf5+1u 02TkybwBMz0XPd2PWNq2qkbQrQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2S4OKkT9pAG2qWpgs+3SZglys/JTnKn/Hb4Bpe0zcY3Mp9xBPg6TctMyMvSmt3IJ1aHxs8Q== X-Received: by 2002:a62:1b84:: with SMTP id b126mr5552921pfb.123.1589572013822; Fri, 15 May 2020 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps15 (S0106002369de4dac.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.8.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lj12sm2169968pjb.21.2020.05.15.12.46.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 15 May 2020 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:46:51 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Bjorn Andersson 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 05/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() Message-ID: <20200515194651.GB24201@xps15> References: <20200424200135.28825-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <20200424200135.28825-6-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <20200506003341.GD2329931@builder.lan> <20200508212756.GB5650@xps15> <20200514021055.GF16107@builder.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200514021055.GF16107@builder.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:10:55PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri 08 May 14:27 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:33:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > > > > Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work > > > > that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is > > > > synchronising with a remote processor. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier > > > > --- > > > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++---- > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > > index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > > > @@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > > > } > > > > > > > > /* > > > > - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it. > > > > + * boot or synchronise with a remote processor. > > > > */ > > > > -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > > > +static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > > > > > Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with > > > fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw" > > > in this function are valid anymore. > > > > That is right, all firmware related operations in this function are found in > > remoteproc_internal.h where the value of rproc->sync_with_mcu is checked before > > moving forward. That allows us to avoid introducing a new function similar to > > rproc_fw_boot() but without firmware operations or peppering the code with if > > statements. > > > > As I wrote in my other reply, the two mechanisms seems to consist of the > following steps: > > boot the core: > 1) request firmware > 2) prepare device > 3) parse fw > 4) handle resources > 5) allocate carveouts > 6) load segments > 7) find resource table > 8) prepare subdevices > 9) power on > 10) start subdevices > > sync: > 1) prepare device (?) > 2) handle resources > 3) allocate carveouts (?) > 4) prepare subdevices > 5) attach > 6) start subdevices > > Rather than relying on the state flag and missing ops will turn the > first list into the second list I conceptually prefer having two > separate functions that are easy to reason about. I reflected long and hard about doing just that... > > But I haven't done any refactoring or implemented this, so in practice > the two might just be a lot of duplication(?) Exactly - duplication and maintenance are my prime concern. Right now some functions in the OFFLINE -> RUNNING are clearly not needed when dealing with a DETACHED -> RUNNING scenarios, but with I am convinced people will find ways to do something creative with the callbacks. In the end I fear the new functions we spin off to deal with DETACHED -> RUNNING scenarios will end up looking very similar to the current implementation. With that in mind I simply did all the work in remoteproc_internal.h and left the core functions intact. We can try spinning off new functions in the next revision, just to test my theory and see how much gets duplicated. > > > > > > > > { > > > > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > > > > const char *name = rproc->firmware; > > > > @@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > > > if (ret) > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > - dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size); > > > > + if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) > > > > > > Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where > > > passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"? > > > > It can but I specifically decided to use rproc_needs_syncing() to be consistent > > with the rest of the patchset. That way all we need to do is grep for > > rproc_needs_syncing to get all the places where a decision about synchronising > > with a remote processor is made. > > > > Conceptually we have a single "to sync or not to sync", but I think > we're invoking rproc_needs_syncing() 8 times during rproc_fw_boot() and > each of those operations may or may not do anything. As I said above, I'll try spinning off new functions in the next revision. From there we can decide how best to move forward. > > There are certain operations where I see it makes sense for a driver to > either implement or not, but I think that e.g. for a rproc in OFFLINE > state we should just require ops->start to be specified - because it > doesn't make sense to enter rproc_start() if ops->start is a nop. At this time ops->start() doesn't have to be specified... But as you say it won't do much good and this is something we can easily spot when reviewing patches. Thanks for the review, Mathieu > > Regards, > Bjorn > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Bjorn > > > > > > > + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", > > > > + name, fw->size); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is > > > > @@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > - ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p); > > > > + ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p); > > > > > > > > release_firmware(firmware_p); > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.20.1 > > > >