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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97367C6FA82 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230133AbiITUv4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:51:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51208 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229799AbiITUvy (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:51:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E784A52E5F for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id fv3so4410083pjb.0 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=5u2iMU/JGarNiptPXM/IL4AC+lCxrHJBFMcfmmfjd6w=; b=nWQ6NtlJjsYBiMqYEjSkMurJHKpsu+zvseu/dT/EfS8N0W9da6MaX3IZWRAGwICs/K 7WgvNrLRBLZPeB3whHKIIIweqFkpnSS+ZIf0gxX+t3OfUdhDEcTUJWpfpxa5Lb82SghU Eq2huN+6wdG/Br7rnJK003/WogD+qNgTPrn7P4JbnHujfzx1XyoeS4aL0M7kBD6S24q7 qWiJAOCsNotbQ7y4XTg/hN35ZZUjZqBBxmb2VFOw3+2YGtKnLTaS5EKn9930IgsGIDk5 Zciey4Sz5JjCMLU2A36fiTYZSaZwcJZT6HIe7PBZZrEgx8yM6GHyKjOiJMriJxHSlqHE nwVg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=5u2iMU/JGarNiptPXM/IL4AC+lCxrHJBFMcfmmfjd6w=; b=iUrEHGceKrElYL4sPfLR7DjBGUC0KZitUHTbZRIlA38+c/X1atZckocmxYFECrJdX1 M3YVARhFVI+EsMOn9WM3aCfkfHa4K/AMf9ZmxEb0zYfAIn0opRxIHPSVPkIL3OEQIqbB FsatGQmLyATH7rmEaqR14W1AaB7DyzW4hseOS/UOgsA2pFyIuNMVs8Lg94UwqIwTA1jd fZTpYcAVenoP17PFM1HTM+ls0FMr+dsb1yEEASAR8SYLw208ij+FmeDmQZLP0MIIgVnq A51NBc2WlVXWFm+R1D+97aubVylB1tqGaDeKh53sRkML0azON+RDj88bm7GKsqcNChIR 1/Eg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0L2UIEnCiWfgeYXYmdyoMuWeVBKYm5ibdtRl1L8V7jx7Nk5T9I y7+ESQ+5ptSltCrssgP1O6iXch4RgwlA7w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5kxKuk2J9L0YLqX34Q0J+fyFTNXsuTMivC71B9HmjaaTZGQHddO5UuQiOSmrfXitZsdB8DSw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3c6:b0:202:c01b:feb4 with SMTP id go6-20020a17090b03c600b00202c01bfeb4mr5981091pjb.28.1663707112443; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p14s (S0106889e681aac74.cg.shawcable.net. [68.147.0.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l9-20020a17090a3f0900b001efa9e83927sm304764pjc.51.2022.09.20.13.51.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 20 Sep 2022 13:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:51:47 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Arnaud POULIQUEN , andersson@kernel.org Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, Rob Herring , Christoph Hellwig , Stefano Stabellini , Bruce Ashfield Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] remoteproc: restructure the remoteproc VirtIO device Message-ID: <20220920205147.GC1042164@p14s> References: <20220826115232.2163130-1-arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com> <20220919223027.GG759648@p14s> <66e27df5-7697-446d-df7c-eb50e6d06f46@foss.st.com> <20220920202201.GB1042164@p14s> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220920202201.GB1042164@p14s> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:22:01PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > On 9/20/22 00:30, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:52:28PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote: > > >> 1) Update from V7 [1]: > > >> > > >> - rebase on rproc-next branch [2], commit 729c16326b7f ("remoteproc: imx_dsp_rproc: fix argument 2 of rproc_mem_entry_init") > > >> The updates take into account the integration of the > > >> commit 1404acbb7f68 ("remoteproc: Fix dma_mem leak after rproc_shutdown") > > >> - add Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier according to reviews on V7 > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/7/13/663 > > >> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/log/?h=for-next > > >> > > >> 2) Patchset description: > > >> > > >> This series is a part of the work initiated a long time ago in > > >> the series "remoteproc: Decorelate virtio from core"[3] > > >> > > >> Objective of the work: > > >> - Update the remoteproc VirtIO device creation (use platform device) > > >> - Allow to declare remoteproc VirtIO device in DT > > >> - declare resources associated to a remote proc VirtIO > > >> - declare a list of VirtIO supported by the platform. > > >> - Prepare the enhancement to more VirtIO devices (e.g I2C, audio, video, ...). > > >> For instance be able to declare a I2C device in a virtio-i2C node. > > >> - Keep the legacy working! > > >> - Try to improve the picture about concerns reported by Christoph Hellwing [4][5] > > >> > > >> [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/16/1817 > > >> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/23/607 > > >> [5] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/AOKowLclCbOCKxyiJ71WeNyuAAj2q8EUtxrXbyky5E@cp7-web-042.plabs.ch/ > > >> > > >> In term of device tree this would result in such hierarchy (stm32mp1 example with 2 virtio RPMSG): > > >> > > >> m4_rproc: m4@10000000 { > > >> compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4"; > > >> reg = <0x10000000 0x40000>, > > >> <0x30000000 0x40000>, > > >> <0x38000000 0x10000>; > > >> memory-region = <&retram>, <&mcuram>,<&mcuram2>; > > >> mboxes = <&ipcc 2>, <&ipcc 3>; > > >> mbox-names = "shutdown", "detach"; > > >> status = "okay"; > > >> > > >> #address-cells = <1>; > > >> #size-cells = <0>; > > >> > > >> vdev@0 { > > >> compatible = "rproc-virtio"; > > >> reg = <0>; > > >> virtio,id = <7>; /* RPMSG */ > > >> memory-region = <&vdev0vring0>, <&vdev0vring1>, <&vdev0buffer>; > > >> mboxes = <&ipcc 0>, <&ipcc 1>; > > >> mbox-names = "vq0", "vq1"; > > >> status = "okay"; > > >> }; > > >> > > >> vdev@1 { > > >> compatible = "rproc-virtio"; > > >> reg = <1>; > > >> virtio,id = <7>; /*RPMSG */ > > >> memory-region = <&vdev1vring0>, <&vdev1vring1>, <&vdev1buffer>; > > >> mboxes = <&ipcc 4>, <&ipcc 5>; > > >> mbox-names = "vq0", "vq1"; > > >> status = "okay"; > > >> }; > > >> }; > > > > > > I was in the process of applying this set when the last patch gave me a > > > checkpatch warning about "virtio,rproc" not being documented. > > > > > > I suggest to introduce a new "virtio-rproc.yaml" based on this work[1], with the > > > above in the example sections. > > > > Yes I saw the warning, but for this first series it is not possible to declare > > the associated "rproc-virtio" device in device tree. > > I understand and agree with your position. > > I am going ahead and merging this set in order for it to get some exposure in > linux-next. That said be on the ready to address potential problems it may > cause. I am getting conflicts because of the patches previously applied to rproc-next. Please resent a series that applies to "7d7f8fe4e399" and I'll move forward with the merge. > > > So at this step it seems not make senses to create the devicetree bindings file. > > More than that I don't know how I could justify the properties in bindings if > > there is not driver code associated. > > > > So i would be in favor of not adding the bindings in this series but to define > > bindings in the first patch of my "step 2" series; as done on my github: > > https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commit/9616d89a4f478cf78865a244efcde108d900f69f > > > > Please let me know your preference. > > > > Regards, > > Arnaud > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mathieu > > > > > > [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/virtio-device.yaml > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I have divided the work in 4 steps to simplify the review, This series implements only > > >> the step 1: > > >> step 1: Redefine the remoteproc VirtIO device as a platform device > > >> - migrate rvdev management in remoteproc virtio.c, > > >> - create a remotproc virtio config ( can be disabled for platform that not use VirtIO IPC. > > >> step 2: Add possibility to declare and probe a VirtIO sub node > > >> - VirtIO bindings declaration, > > >> - multi DT VirtIO devices support, > > >> - introduction of a remote proc virtio bind device mechanism , > > >> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step2-virtio-in-DT > > >> step 3: Add memory declaration in VirtIO subnode > > >> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step3-virtio-memories > > >> step 4: Add mailbox declaration in VirtIO subnode > > >> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step4-virtio-mailboxes > > >> > > >> Arnaud Pouliquen (4): > > >> remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_rvdev_add_device function > > >> remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_add_rvdev function > > >> remoteproc: Move rproc_vdev management to remoteproc_virtio.c > > >> remoteproc: virtio: Create platform device for the remoteproc_virtio > > >> > > >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 154 +++--------------- > > >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 23 ++- > > >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++++--- > > >> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 6 +- > > >> 4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-) > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 2.24.3 > > >>