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 bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20ED8EB64DA for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:47:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=Cq9kksQnbk8oSZoCVDI037xFxIimNP2HXZgzas5sPeU=; b=wUl5TrM8vuiPaK mcaBizjkEgxEBmm70YrTCcdmE5Nj4/eGBaC1nkgT+xb4i8KO6rlDlgjY1x2lvL3FSl2UWDsl+Ghkk 67DnpOAndtHtD0B3VbPLWnu+eJ+nQnBAqp4a5z/mpS2QWt1Mzh21/2YckfcfMmNyfP0SzjgKIV86Q y/L76Dpe6hDC6JJJNuYwy2EhdJd3ij9bib29xPYfFtxaNkFQZoxcdAqx5BGsq09O6lUbBxlRRxQsL Boz8rw4GVHgfhtSFiF+M78vlfuWcsZjrGp3zdvarHkr5I4dYQKtrTWS35TiI2BD7P6zKtiwpw1+Ia /XW19G1WN++2dxawd4UQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qM9On-007zWv-0c; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:47:33 +0000 Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qM9Ok-007zVR-0G for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 15:47:32 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-66767d628e2so4695697b3a.2 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1689781646; x=1690386446; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rA/3cYmYP9DShzYXoAgqhlU5HPUKS1wa/nHGxwzX3U4=; b=wAAwX/qgHXj2kKMJar6LkvswRhFcqjK5dFVIG9vjvEys/9BY2QohFe8CAuOWVhEioK UR3IoWsZQW7k7pO7RF6uoTEvPIDdo0vl3JMILlvySqf0XKmPZIdhCt7VDqkvvrHxtVpM 758tPg33Mn1YHpR9jyrrP0p19IqHO/NpZl0//6o4YLbotUHfdMzkWE10Acy+YrftEn0b 8r4eG1Z9wwWYSdNrT1vZrQMoaIffsVy+N3pe/f9ihbcuL/hRbHV1fUDPZazz0P8Cj/KB MlEJmV0u6MmQy+XF+CgzO+M4g721y3bZv6JTAFMqXDV8eL78y/rPweLSkTQcXst9UwAS TKNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1689781646; x=1690386446; 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 :message-id:reply-to; bh=rA/3cYmYP9DShzYXoAgqhlU5HPUKS1wa/nHGxwzX3U4=; b=huqrNsIERL9M9FQAY9Q/Q/K5EH+OqujEpqJ3hEUkvRi1U8OoN4uPkQ7Hoy0VyiH2gK 9ff2+ykS+agl5UaNwLuDEIB7r11SqZNIRq7VRoVNMVxt23I8UQoOD4/QiYKEflYI9COi hXttNCV1b04Y6fNUoNdxXCoByzDe2eJ01geLKXogRE3VGkUH1HB1r9ih2o6RCdgWysAr mphyBeIP8nzdWaccJDjhiYSxZQLG9KHzo00qHfmFSQHDmlNVmm+nD649lzstNboDPMI1 0wn4vOLQX4OOn7v5F424Ag85GCqqsc8aGTyFwT7snpuxJ/zeBqCICHq3SvSUDIS6fOwO nBBw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLapGJqZ4E9GBsH93GTfEgAlEDvCJiZ6VkrlnFcZ93RsohBK4FUw Uj14bQUB25ilgnD7uNipi2Aii/Ju7LP1efsGlnk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlFO0Ez8AMQpNzyS+AnJZrKeAbW1gKn8UNJsX4k6R0koGmrBG8IsKhxgiCrWFNvIbNgMoKwMrA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2ea7:b0:67b:d2e4:6bd2 with SMTP id fd39-20020a056a002ea700b0067bd2e46bd2mr3665417pfb.17.1689781646252; Wed, 19 Jul 2023 08:47:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p14s ([2604:3d09:148c:c800:6ba3:d4ce:34db:c692]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t1-20020a63b241000000b0055bf13811f5sm3669504pgo.15.2023.07.19.08.47.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 Jul 2023 08:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:47:21 -0600 From: Mathieu Poirier To: Iuliana Prodan Cc: "Iuliana Prodan (OSS)" , Bjorn Andersson , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer , "S.J. Wang" , Fabio Estevam , Daniel Baluta , Mpuaudiosw , linux-imx , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pengutronix Kernel Team , LnxRevLi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: imx_dsp_rproc: add module parameter to ignore ready flag from remote processor Message-ID: References: <20230712224251.26482-1-iuliana.prodan@oss.nxp.com> <6fe5691f-67f4-ff70-8350-b4b6c08097b0@nxp.com> <86da3550-9711-6714-0857-2f7611dc9453@nxp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86da3550-9711-6714-0857-2f7611dc9453@nxp.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230719_084730_207909_DF3B719A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 55.20 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 07:44:49PM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote: > On 7/18/2023 6:48 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:30:43AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote: > > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > > > On 7/17/2023 8:34 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > Hi Iuliana, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:42:51AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > From: Iuliana Prodan > > > > > > > > > > There are cases when we want to test samples that do not > > > > > reply with FW READY message, after fw is loaded and the > > > > > remote processor started. > > > > This seems like a bug to me - where is this FW comes from? > > > The firmware is a generic sample from Zephyr repo: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table > > > > > > There is no bug, this is how the application was written. > > But how did it ever worked before? > > It never worked on this kind of samples (and it was never tested like this). > We used only applications written by us (NXP) with the > requirements/limitations we know we have. > Now, we want to use also generic firmware/samples (from Zephyr) and we face > other kind of limitations. > Right, we can't expect firmware written for a totally different OS to work out of the box on Linux, and vice versa. > > And how does having a module flag to > > characterize each FW implementation that springs up in the field can scale (and > > be maintainable)? > > I believe the FW_READY reply is a limitation introduced by imx_dsp_rproc. > We cannot expect all firmware to give a FW_READY reply. > So, to keep both usecases (internal firmware and generic sample) I added > this flag. > What happens when a third, fourth and fifth protocol variation get introduced? Adding flags just doesn't scale. > > > Rather than modifying a generic sample for i.MX usecase, I prefer doing an > > > "insmod imx_dsp_rproc.ko ignore_dsp_ready=1" just for this sample. > > We already have a "no_mailbox" flag for cases where the FW doesn't need to > > communicate with the main processor. > "no_mailbox" - no IPC between cores; > "ignore_dsp_ready" - we have IPC between cores, but the remote processor > doesn't send a fw_ready reply > These two can be combine, but for "no_mailbox" will do some useless memory > allocations. > > When I added the "no_mailbox" flag, the problem was still FW_READY. > > What happens when some FW implementation > > requires a three-way handshake? How many flags do we spin off? > > > > As I said above this approach is not sustainable. I suggest to either fix the > > FW (it doesn't work with upstream in its present form anyway) or start using the > > config space as described here [1] to dynamically probe the characteristics of > > the FW being loaded. Whichever option you chose, the FW needs to be updated and > > the former is a lot more simple. > I don't think I can modify a generic sample, used on other targets to send a > FW_READY reply. > How will it be handled on other platforms, if their *_rproc are not > expecting this kind of message? > The only way forward is to come up with a standard specification to describe the protocol to use, the same way it is done for virtIO for example. > Thanks, > Iulia > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/remoteproc.h#L298 > > > > > Thanks, > > > Iulia > > > > > > > > In these cases, do not wait for a confirmation from the remote processor > > > > > at start. > > > > > > > > > > Added "ignore_dsp_ready" flag while inserting the module to ignore > > > > > remote processor reply after start. > > > > > By default, this is off - do not ignore reply from rproc. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Iuliana Prodan > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > This was discovered while testing openamp_rsc_table sample from Zephyr > > > > > repo (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table). > > > > > > > > > > We have IPC, but the remote proc doesn't send a FW_READY reply. > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > index b5634507d953..ed89de2f3b98 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > @@ -36,7 +36,13 @@ module_param_named(no_mailboxes, no_mailboxes, int, 0644); > > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_mailboxes, > > > > > "There is no mailbox between cores, so ignore remote proc reply after start, default is 0 (off)."); > > > > > +static unsigned int imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready; > > > > > +module_param_named(ignore_dsp_ready, imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready, int, 0644); > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_dsp_ready, > > > > > + "Ignore remote proc reply after start, default is 0 (off)."); > > > > > + > > > > > #define REMOTE_IS_READY BIT(0) > > > > > +#define REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY BIT(1) > > > > > #define REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 500 > > > > > /* att flags */ > > > > > @@ -296,6 +302,12 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_ready(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > if (!priv->rxdb_ch) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * FW_READY reply is optional/ignored, so don't wait for it. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > for (i = 0; i < REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; i++) { > > > > > if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IS_READY) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > @@ -1119,6 +1131,9 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > else > > > > > imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init = imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc; > > > > > + if (imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready) > > > > > + priv->flags |= REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY; > > > > > + > > > > > dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc); > > > > > INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_dsp_rproc_vq_work); > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel