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 D7C3A2080C1; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:23:40 +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=1760433820; cv=none; b=i7GFO+8YncyvBJR3uSFs5oFpBR9IXZ4y0+jZqn01mbmVRZIbHO4MzgkYl28WNOUq+DTxncTSrmygTA0KhRv2obuqx+B/oKhDyFpFtFdNFzCzOYSJ5MTiuyD3SRIhynJtJ0BS6zjEcnyFcOnMIduHmMbcV5AM7Q/4cA8foR9kSe4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760433820; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8UMDWUKXnpdCQC7p8eOw9etMN6k4kyh9pwqfBIRJJR4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=S+/2PPU5IKa0qBPoYOX7y6j8jRDf+r07skhyDQIHtZBaas+m0ltctjcdz3mBAUilriQNRwfBD1Eo7b9M6+lSF/aHf0VujRecqcopPeUx37ZRXHubB5X/PJDXItz+TdSWDM+eaSS0iMwUZdjmF0jlR7u5/VRG8re5UOlqbvl6WK8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OxijG8Ee; 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="OxijG8Ee" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AEAEC113D0; Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:23:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760433820; bh=8UMDWUKXnpdCQC7p8eOw9etMN6k4kyh9pwqfBIRJJR4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=OxijG8Ee2g5+wVQnN1qVAuG8VcAY4HRVLn8vhSjOM7j7u/qSgp3Y1jBaIy50zEbUr 3UmR+WU+NNvFUBOoKX6jegmuW9xrZ8b3jTnCKA0LccwLcM2WJIhKjzkQzokmU4GCFT p1C4gatH3OkYEwhVTUhG1+NaJsdWUZ6u4LIBleck60/q1eijpfs6FEBPl83NKAHsC+ hb+6Zyq4fTx4ghfJ8XGh0t4prBJwWp5HAK7oJ5X35ixzuIz3ouRm6F9xM23i35s67o jW1aP4lFTsRyNPTSqQOGbBsTROYsZh7oszs1QwFMgghXEnRl9odRaf3Kl12TqZ48Z8 3NVfLEmJjjzkg== Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:23:37 +0200 From: Lorenzo Bianconi To: Simon Horman 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: 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RC3OzpSHrP3UiKaL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --RC3OzpSHrP3UiKaL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:58:50PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: >=20 > ... >=20 > > @@ -182,49 +192,53 @@ static int airoha_npu_send_msg(struct airoha_npu = *npu, int func_id, > > return ret; > > } > > =20 > > -static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *b= ase, > > - 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; > > =20 > > - ret =3D request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32, dev); > > + ret =3D request_firmware(&fw, fw_info->name, dev); > > if (ret) > > return ret =3D=3D -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret; > > =20 > > - 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 =3D -E2BIG; > > goto out; > > } > > =20 > > - addr =3D devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res); > > - if (IS_ERR(addr)) { > > - ret =3D PTR_ERR(addr); > > - goto out; > > - } > > - > > memcpy_toio(addr, fw->data, fw->size); > > +out: > > release_firmware(fw); > > =20 > > - ret =3D request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA, dev); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret =3D=3D -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret; > > + return ret; > > +} > > =20 > > - 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 =3D -E2BIG; > > - goto out; > > - } > > +static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *b= ase, > > + struct resource *res) > > +{ > > + const struct airoha_npu_soc_data *soc; > > + void __iomem *addr; > > + int ret; > > =20 > > - memcpy_toio(base + REG_NPU_LOCAL_SRAM, fw->data, fw->size); > > -out: > > - release_firmware(fw); > > + soc =3D of_device_get_match_data(dev); > > + if (!soc) > > + return -EINVAL; > > =20 > > - return ret; > > + addr =3D devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res); > > + if (IS_ERR(addr)) > > + return PTR_ERR(addr); > > + > > + /* Load rv32 npu firmware */ > > + ret =3D 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); >=20 > Hi Lorenzo, Hi Simon, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 reques= ting the second one. Am I missing something? >=20 > 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() remov= ing the module. Agree? Regards, Lorenzo >=20 > > } > > =20 > > static irqreturn_t airoha_npu_mbox_handler(int irq, void *npu_instance) >=20 > ... --RC3OzpSHrP3UiKaL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQTquNwa3Txd3rGGn7Y6cBh0uS2trAUCaO4WmQAKCRA6cBh0uS2t rMoTAP9HdqSplLptTvESowj2txGAcrb/gc17fXY3RbXV9I2MoQEAokKGOUSeg9My inH68eZk4H3dQS+CcqdVfpLwtEramQU= =2u0A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RC3OzpSHrP3UiKaL--