From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sarangdhar Joshi Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_{start,stop}() functions Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 19:06:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1493758742-26148-1-git-send-email-spjoshi@codeaurora.org> <20170503000205.GZ15143@minitux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170503000205.GZ15143@minitux> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen , Loic Pallardy , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd , Trilok Soni List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 05/02/2017 05:02 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 02 May 13:59 PDT 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote: > >> In the context of recovering from crash, >> rproc_trigger_recovery() does rproc_shutdown() followed >> by rproc_boot(). The remoteproc resources are cleaned up >> in rproc_shutdown() and immediately reallocated in >> rproc_boot() which is an unnecessary overhead. >> >> Furthermore, we want the memory regions to be accessible >> after stopping the remote processor, to be able to extract >> the memory content for a coredump. >> >> The current patch factors out the code in rproc_boot() and > > "This patch factors..." > >> rproc_shutdown() path and introduces rproc_{start,stop}() >> in order to avoid resource allocation overhead. >> > > I think the result of the two patches looks good. > > But I would prefer if you splice them differently. If I read the patches > correctly you should be able to introduce rproc_start()/stop() and move > rproc_boot()/shutdown() over to use these in one patch and then in a > second patch modify the behavior of the recovery. > > That way if one bisects any issues to either one we know if it was the > refactoring or the modification of the recovery behavior. Yes, got your point. I will split it into two separate patches. Regards, Sarang > > Regards, > Bjorn > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project