devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: airoha: npu: Add airoha_npu_soc_data struct
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:46:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251014134609.GA3239414@horms.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aO4WmeuoAcZLFSBo@lore-desk>

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:23:37AM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:58:50PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > @@ -182,49 +192,53 @@ static int airoha_npu_send_msg(struct airoha_npu *npu, int func_id,
> > >  	return ret;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > > -				   struct resource *res)
> > > +static int airoha_npu_load_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *addr,
> > > +				    const struct airoha_npu_fw *fw_info)
> > >  {
> > >  	const struct firmware *fw;
> > > -	void __iomem *addr;
> > >  	int ret;
> > >  
> > > -	ret = request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32, dev);
> > > +	ret = request_firmware(&fw, fw_info->name, dev);
> > >  	if (ret)
> > >  		return ret == -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret;
> > >  
> > > -	if (fw->size > NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32_MAX_SIZE) {
> > > +	if (fw->size > fw_info->max_size) {
> > >  		dev_err(dev, "%s: fw size too overlimit (%zu)\n",
> > > -			NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32, fw->size);
> > > +			fw_info->name, fw->size);
> > >  		ret = -E2BIG;
> > >  		goto out;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	addr = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > > -	if (IS_ERR(addr)) {
> > > -		ret = PTR_ERR(addr);
> > > -		goto out;
> > > -	}
> > > -
> > >  	memcpy_toio(addr, fw->data, fw->size);
> > > +out:
> > >  	release_firmware(fw);
> > >  
> > > -	ret = request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA, dev);
> > > -	if (ret)
> > > -		return ret == -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret;
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > >  
> > > -	if (fw->size > NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA_MAX_SIZE) {
> > > -		dev_err(dev, "%s: fw size too overlimit (%zu)\n",
> > > -			NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA, fw->size);
> > > -		ret = -E2BIG;
> > > -		goto out;
> > > -	}
> > > +static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > > +				   struct resource *res)
> > > +{
> > > +	const struct airoha_npu_soc_data *soc;
> > > +	void __iomem *addr;
> > > +	int ret;
> > >  
> > > -	memcpy_toio(base + REG_NPU_LOCAL_SRAM, fw->data, fw->size);
> > > -out:
> > > -	release_firmware(fw);
> > > +	soc = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > > +	if (!soc)
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > >  
> > > -	return ret;
> > > +	addr = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(addr))
> > > +		return PTR_ERR(addr);
> > > +
> > > +	/* Load rv32 npu firmware */
> > > +	ret = airoha_npu_load_firmware(dev, addr, &soc->fw_rv32);
> > > +	if (ret)
> > > +		return ret;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Load data npu firmware */
> > > +	return airoha_npu_load_firmware(dev, base + REG_NPU_LOCAL_SRAM,
> > > +					&soc->fw_data);
> > 
> > Hi Lorenzo,
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> > 
> > There are two calls to airoha_npu_load_firmware() above.
> > And, internally, airoha_npu_load_firmware() will call release_firmware()
> > if an error is encountered.
> > 
> > But should release_firmware() be called for the firmware requested
> > by the first call to airoha_npu_load_firmware() if the second call fails?
> > Such clean-up seems to have been the case prior to this patch.
> 
> release_firmware() is intended to release the resources allocated by the
> corresponding call to request_firmware() in airoha_npu_load_firmware().
> According to my understanding we always run release_firmware() in
> airoha_npu_load_firmware() before returning to the caller. Even before this
> patch we run release_firmware() on the 'first' firmware image before requesting
> the second one. Am I missing something?
> 
> > 
> > Also, not strictly related. Should release_firmware() be called (twice)
> > when the driver is removed?
> 
> For the above reasons, it is not important to call release_firmware() removing
> the module. Agree?

Thanks, agreed.

For some reason I missed that release_firmware() is called in
airoha_npu_load_firmware() regardless of error - I thought it was only
in error paths for some reason.

So I agree that the firmware is always released by the time
airoha_npu_load_firmware() is returned. As thus there is never
a need to release it afterwards.

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>



  reply	other threads:[~2025-10-14 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-10-13 13:58 [PATCH net-next v3 0/3] net: airoha: npu: Introduce support for Airoha 7583 NPU Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-13 13:58 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] dt-bindings: net: airoha: npu: Add AN7583 support Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-13 13:58 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: airoha: npu: Add airoha_npu_soc_data struct Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-14  8:34   ` Simon Horman
2025-10-14  9:23     ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-14 13:46       ` Simon Horman [this message]
2025-10-14 13:52         ` Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-13 13:58 ` [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] net: airoha: npu: Add 7583 SoC support Lorenzo Bianconi
2025-10-14  8:35   ` Simon Horman
2025-10-16  1:00 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/3] net: airoha: npu: Introduce support for Airoha 7583 NPU patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=20251014134609.GA3239414@horms.kernel.org \
    --to=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).