All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>
Cc: ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnaud.pouliquen@st.com,
	benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org, fabien.dessenne@st.com,
	s-anna@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:30:40 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191229053037.GU3108315@builder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1574940831-7433-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com>

On Thu 28 Nov 03:33 PST 2019, Loic Pallardy wrote:

> Remote processor could boot independently or be loaded/started before
> Linux kernel by bootloader or any firmware.
> This patch introduces a new property in rproc core, named skip_fw_load,
> to be able to allocate resources and sub-devices like vdev and to
> synchronize with current state without loading firmware from file system.
> It is platform driver responsibility to implement the right firmware
> load ops according to HW specificities.
> 

I was going to apply the patch, as I like what it actually does. But I'm
concerned about how you're going to use it (which you fail to show in
this single patch). Just two things below.

> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>
> Acked-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> 
> ---
> Change from v3:
> - add comment about firmware NULL pointer
> - add Mathieu Poirier Ack
> Change from v2:
> - rename property into skip_fw_load
> - update rproc_boot and rproc_fw_boot description
> - update commit message
> Change from v1:
> - Keep bool in struct rproc
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  include/linux/remoteproc.h           |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 307df98347ba..367a7929b7a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1358,8 +1358,19 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> +/**
> + * rproc_fw_boot() - boot specified remote processor according to specified
> + * firmware
> + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
> + * @fw: pointer on firmware to handle
> + *
> + * Handle resources defined in resource table, load firmware and
> + * start remote processor.
> + *
> + * If firmware pointer fw is NULL, firmware is not handled by remoteproc
> + * core, but under the responsibility of platform driver.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
>   */
>  static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> @@ -1371,7 +1382,11 @@ 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 (fw)
> +		dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name,
> +			 fw->size);
> +	else
> +		dev_info(dev, "Synchronizing with preloaded co-processor\n");

This log line implies that ops->start() doesn't actually start the
remoteproc, but it sounds like a remote proc with skip_fw_load actually
would boot the remote processor, but with some pre-existing firmware.

As such it makes more sense, in this patch, to print "Booting\n" here.


But I presume you have a platform driver with a nop start()
implementation and no ability to reload the firmware on a crash?

>  
>  	/*
>  	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> @@ -1718,16 +1733,22 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   * rproc_boot() - boot a remote processor
>   * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
>   *
> - * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...).
> + * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...) from
> + * different contexts:
> + * - power off
> + * - preloaded firmware
> + * - started before kernel execution
> + * The different operations are selected thanks to properties defined by
> + * platform driver.
>   *
> - * If the remote processor is already powered on, this function immediately
> - * returns (successfully).
> + * If the remote processor is already powered on at rproc level, this function
> + * immediately returns (successfully).
>   *
>   * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
>   */
>  int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> -	const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> +	const struct firmware *firmware_p = NULL;
>  	struct device *dev;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -1758,11 +1779,20 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  
>  	dev_info(dev, "powering up %s\n", rproc->name);
>  
> -	/* load firmware */
> -	ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> -		goto downref_rproc;
> +	if (!rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> +		/* load firmware */
> +		ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> +			goto downref_rproc;
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		/*
> +		 * Set firmware name pointer to null as remoteproc core is not
> +		 * in charge of firmware loading
> +		 */
> +		kfree(rproc->firmware);
> +		rproc->firmware = NULL;

Why do this on every boot? Why don't you change rproc_alloc() to never
populate rproc->firmware?

Regards,
Bjorn

>  	}
>  
>  	ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> @@ -1916,8 +1946,17 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	/* create debugfs entries */
>  	rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc);
>  
> -	/* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
> -	if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> +	if (rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If rproc is marked already booted, no need to wait
> +		 * for firmware.
> +		 * Just handle associated resources and start sub devices
> +		 */
> +		ret = rproc_boot(rproc);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	} else if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> +		/* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
>  		ret = rproc_trigger_auto_boot(rproc);
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			return ret;
> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> index 16ad66683ad0..4fd5bedab4fa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> @@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
>   * @table_sz: size of @cached_table
>   * @has_iommu: flag to indicate if remote processor is behind an MMU
>   * @auto_boot: flag to indicate if remote processor should be auto-started
> + * @skip_fw_load: remote processor has been preloaded before start sequence
>   * @dump_segments: list of segments in the firmware
>   * @nb_vdev: number of vdev currently handled by rproc
>   */
> @@ -512,6 +513,7 @@ struct rproc {
>  	size_t table_sz;
>  	bool has_iommu;
>  	bool auto_boot;
> +	bool skip_fw_load;
>  	struct list_head dump_segments;
>  	int nb_vdev;
>  };
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>
Cc: ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnaud.pouliquen@st.com,
	benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org, fabien.dessenne@st.com,
	s-anna@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:30:37 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191229053037.GU3108315@builder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1574940831-7433-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com>

On Thu 28 Nov 03:33 PST 2019, Loic Pallardy wrote:

> Remote processor could boot independently or be loaded/started before
> Linux kernel by bootloader or any firmware.
> This patch introduces a new property in rproc core, named skip_fw_load,
> to be able to allocate resources and sub-devices like vdev and to
> synchronize with current state without loading firmware from file system.
> It is platform driver responsibility to implement the right firmware
> load ops according to HW specificities.
> 

I was going to apply the patch, as I like what it actually does. But I'm
concerned about how you're going to use it (which you fail to show in
this single patch). Just two things below.

> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@st.com>
> Acked-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> 
> ---
> Change from v3:
> - add comment about firmware NULL pointer
> - add Mathieu Poirier Ack
> Change from v2:
> - rename property into skip_fw_load
> - update rproc_boot and rproc_fw_boot description
> - update commit message
> Change from v1:
> - Keep bool in struct rproc
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  include/linux/remoteproc.h           |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 307df98347ba..367a7929b7a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1358,8 +1358,19 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> +/**
> + * rproc_fw_boot() - boot specified remote processor according to specified
> + * firmware
> + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
> + * @fw: pointer on firmware to handle
> + *
> + * Handle resources defined in resource table, load firmware and
> + * start remote processor.
> + *
> + * If firmware pointer fw is NULL, firmware is not handled by remoteproc
> + * core, but under the responsibility of platform driver.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
>   */
>  static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> @@ -1371,7 +1382,11 @@ 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 (fw)
> +		dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name,
> +			 fw->size);
> +	else
> +		dev_info(dev, "Synchronizing with preloaded co-processor\n");

This log line implies that ops->start() doesn't actually start the
remoteproc, but it sounds like a remote proc with skip_fw_load actually
would boot the remote processor, but with some pre-existing firmware.

As such it makes more sense, in this patch, to print "Booting\n" here.


But I presume you have a platform driver with a nop start()
implementation and no ability to reload the firmware on a crash?

>  
>  	/*
>  	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> @@ -1718,16 +1733,22 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   * rproc_boot() - boot a remote processor
>   * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
>   *
> - * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...).
> + * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...) from
> + * different contexts:
> + * - power off
> + * - preloaded firmware
> + * - started before kernel execution
> + * The different operations are selected thanks to properties defined by
> + * platform driver.
>   *
> - * If the remote processor is already powered on, this function immediately
> - * returns (successfully).
> + * If the remote processor is already powered on at rproc level, this function
> + * immediately returns (successfully).
>   *
>   * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
>   */
>  int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> -	const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> +	const struct firmware *firmware_p = NULL;
>  	struct device *dev;
>  	int ret;
>  
> @@ -1758,11 +1779,20 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  
>  	dev_info(dev, "powering up %s\n", rproc->name);
>  
> -	/* load firmware */
> -	ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> -		goto downref_rproc;
> +	if (!rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> +		/* load firmware */
> +		ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> +			goto downref_rproc;
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		/*
> +		 * Set firmware name pointer to null as remoteproc core is not
> +		 * in charge of firmware loading
> +		 */
> +		kfree(rproc->firmware);
> +		rproc->firmware = NULL;

Why do this on every boot? Why don't you change rproc_alloc() to never
populate rproc->firmware?

Regards,
Bjorn

>  	}
>  
>  	ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> @@ -1916,8 +1946,17 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	/* create debugfs entries */
>  	rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc);
>  
> -	/* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
> -	if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> +	if (rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> +		/*
> +		 * If rproc is marked already booted, no need to wait
> +		 * for firmware.
> +		 * Just handle associated resources and start sub devices
> +		 */
> +		ret = rproc_boot(rproc);
> +		if (ret < 0)
> +			return ret;
> +	} else if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> +		/* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
>  		ret = rproc_trigger_auto_boot(rproc);
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			return ret;
> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> index 16ad66683ad0..4fd5bedab4fa 100644
> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> @@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
>   * @table_sz: size of @cached_table
>   * @has_iommu: flag to indicate if remote processor is behind an MMU
>   * @auto_boot: flag to indicate if remote processor should be auto-started
> + * @skip_fw_load: remote processor has been preloaded before start sequence
>   * @dump_segments: list of segments in the firmware
>   * @nb_vdev: number of vdev currently handled by rproc
>   */
> @@ -512,6 +513,7 @@ struct rproc {
>  	size_t table_sz;
>  	bool has_iommu;
>  	bool auto_boot;
> +	bool skip_fw_load;
>  	struct list_head dump_segments;
>  	int nb_vdev;
>  };
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-12-29  5:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-28 11:33 [PATCH v4 1/1] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel Loic Pallardy
2019-11-28 11:33 ` Loic Pallardy
2019-12-29  5:30 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2019-12-29  5:30   ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-01-06 14:53   ` Loic PALLARDY

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=20191229053037.GU3108315@builder \
    --to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=arnaud.pouliquen@st.com \
    --cc=benjamin.gaignard@linaro.org \
    --cc=fabien.dessenne@st.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=loic.pallardy@st.com \
    --cc=ohad@wizery.com \
    --cc=s-anna@ti.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.