From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A6F199949; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760449574; cv=none; b=C02CtjfWQvPnnfIKhtr2ReCx3OcCZ3R7+hUM8qhweZd97lu+uFvwO1CvIO8ZD4wUHME7hNkgVIITd0eX5x8Gqm0ZqxIhk77Ujh9VuAEGQYnNfHhVuX8l4wrT4RtVtIgBE2jkxLpLzuMeNcpt4F+D1JzNJE9R/fk1sESlewE8vS4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760449574; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1/iiJ1pUws2SIwvd6uEYF2UH4KkmPHjI8c7G8UkfUe8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=bbeHxk2h7YgGzplzIMMc3rMvdqhJaEtti74zZtTpxWGrHXoBdwcSAwsena2kQN3eXkSFiGZvKtzvK6jp6n4nk7Fp5/aUCqAbOXaG0ZXI3x63wpxApioDLSbACUnUvwDvxOTiU6S3T7q7F9hnRMDIlzm+/mgbbRAi4cQst3BsJgk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=oTFS7isr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="oTFS7isr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7FC0C4CEE7; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760449574; bh=1/iiJ1pUws2SIwvd6uEYF2UH4KkmPHjI8c7G8UkfUe8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oTFS7isr46L0jfmzYg7VUlWBAlOKhaLiSSALe74bUVABRnv9gFyGxG8xCLhW9DF/A nqih8IM1uLh2DLkEzRJCtNeDUoj4/+tHic0ZOax6QsluF5inx8E8P4LEKpkifsAV3m SKiZbwt1ZMTwnLeOYIVWxBmhhm5etmr00PXZQ95qEUuZ0S/tL5kNUCJI7wcQ24coBt LENhOuwJR+PXn8qLhL7VueJ9IlK7eedtZAl5F4dRglKXGEDt4JFFCG6lYvL7EbTbWu 7Hirfu/PWYkb5sG2atULCHmKKjBrlNnr5d8oc3epLWcGvvy0dQlwRaC2HZIhjhnGHV y1ODOEPSDyeEg== Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 14:46:09 +0100 From: Simon Horman To: Lorenzo Bianconi Cc: Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , 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 Message-ID: <20251014134609.GA3239414@horms.kernel.org> References: <20251013-airoha-npu-7583-v3-0-00f748b5a0c7@kernel.org> <20251013-airoha-npu-7583-v3-2-00f748b5a0c7@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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