Re: [PATCH 1/7] remoteproc: resource table overhaul

[frq09524 <ludovic.barre@stericsson.com>]

Hi Ohad and Michal

yes I can share my patch, remoteproc has evolved and my patch is not 
aligned on latest version of remote proc (especially since remoteproc: 
remove the single rpmsg vdev limitation).

Ohad, for alignment I can take the latest branch of kernel.org 
(remoteproc) branch for-next?

/BR
Ludovic Barré

On 05/22/2012 07:51 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> Hi Ohad and Ludovic,
>
> 2012/5/21 Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com <mailto:ohad@wizery.com>>
>
>     Hi Michal,
>
>     On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu
>     <mailto:monstr@monstr.eu>> wrote:
>      > I have looked at it and tested on latest and greatest and the
>     problem is
>      > still there.
>
>     Ok, I see why this is happening.
>
>     We're now allocating the vrings' DMA in ->find_vqs() just before we
>     boot the remote processor, and we release it on ->del_vqs(). These are
>     the virtio handlers for setting up and tearing down the vrings, so it
>     makes sense to do so, but as a result, we still don't get the early
>     carveout allocation you wanted.
>
>      > I have looked at the code and path is
>      > rproc_fw_config_virtio -> rproc_handliefirtion_rsc ->
>     rproc_handle_vdev
>
>     Please note that rproc_handle_vdev doesn't allocate any DMA at this
>     point, and the allocation path is now quite different - it begins with
>     virtio_rpmsg_bus probing and then calling into the ->find_vqs()
>     handler.
>
>
>      > For me it is necessary to ensure that dma_alloc_coherent in
>      > rproc_alloc_vring is called after carveout allocation
>      > just because dma_alloc_cohorent takes mermory from preallocated
>     pool which
>      > starts at 0x0.
>
>     ok.
>
>      > I also don't have
>      > any other advance mechanism how to ensure mapping for the second
>     arm core.
>
>     Probably the best way to ensure this (without it breaking unexpectedly
>     again as remoteproc evolves) is to have separate sub-devices for
>     different kind of memories, which remoteproc could then look up using
>     something like device_find_child().
>
>     Ludovic is exploring this direction too, because STE also needs to
>     bind specific memory regions with predefined purposes, without
>     depending on the order of DMA allocations.
>
>
> It is good that someone else has similar requirements.
>
>
>     I think Ludovic already has a preliminary patch which he may be able
>     to share with you.
>
>
> Ludovic: Can you share your patch with us? I would like to try it.
>
>
>      > Here is log which I need to get. Look at attached patch which
>     exactly show
>      > you what I need to do which I have tested.
>
>     Yes, I see. Another temporary approach might be moving the vrings'
>     allocations to the rproc_handle_rsc table (in the RSC_VDEV slot), but
>     I'm not sure we want to merge this as well because this solution too
>     is only hiding the real issue and not solving it permanently.
>
>
> Simple enabling RSC_VDEV in rproc_handle_rsc doesn't work.
>
> BTW: I am using kernel modules and there is no dependency for
> virtio_rpmsg_bus in remoteproc module
> in sense if you load remoteproc module you also need to load
> virtio_rpmsg_bus to get firmware to work.
>
> I think that will be good to create that dependency automatically
> because you need to load virtio_rpmsg_bus
> when you problem remoteproc module.
>
> ~ # lsmod
> ~ # modprobe zynq_remoteproc
> zynq_remoteproc: Unknown symbol rproc_register (err 0)
> zynq_remoteproc: Unknown symbol rproc_alloc (err 0)
> zynq_remoteproc: Unknown symbol rproc_vq_interrupt (err 0)
> zynq_remoteproc: Unknown symbol rproc_free (err 0)
> zynq_remoteproc: Unknown symbol rproc_unregister (err 0)
> CPU1: shutdown
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: 0.remoteproc-test is available
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: Note: remoteproc is still under
> development and considered experimental.
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: THE BINARY FORMAT IS NOT YET
> FINALIZED, and backward compatibility isn't yet guaranteed.
> ~ # zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: registered virtio0 (type 7)
>
> ~ # lsmod
> zynq_remoteproc 4346 0 - Live 0xbf01f000
> remoteproc 13831 1 zynq_remoteproc, Live 0xbf018000
> virtio 2840 1 remoteproc, Live 0xbf008000
> virtio_ring 4965 1 remoteproc, Live 0xbf013000
> ~ #
> ~ # modprobe virtio_rpmsg_bus
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: powering up 0.remoteproc-test
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: Booting fw image test, size 2351790
> zynq_remoteproc 0.remoteproc-test: remote processor 0.remoteproc-test is
> now up
> virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio0: rpmsg host is online
> virtio_rpmsg_bus virtio0: creating channel rpmsg-timer-statistic addr 0x50
> ~ #
> ~ # lsmod
> virtio_rpmsg_bus 7575 0 - Live 0xbf024000
> zynq_remoteproc 4346 1 - Live 0xbf01f000
> remoteproc 13831 1 zynq_remoteproc, Live 0xbf018000
> virtio 2840 2 virtio_rpmsg_bus,remoteproc, Live 0xbf008000
> virtio_ring 4965 2 virtio_rpmsg_bus,remoteproc, Live 0xbf013000
> ~ #
>
> Can you see the same behavior on omap?
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>