From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965086AbcIPRMy (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:12:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:32838 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759216AbcIPRMn (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:12:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:12:38 -0700 From: Bjorn Andersson To: loic pallardy Cc: ohad@wizery.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/19] remoteproc: Add new resource type for resource table spare bytes Message-ID: <20160916171238.GH21438@tuxbot> References: <1472676622-32533-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <1472676622-32533-8-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <20160915175432.GF21438@tuxbot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 16 Sep 02:02 PDT 2016, loic pallardy wrote: > > > On 09/15/2016 07:54 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >On Wed 31 Aug 13:50 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > > > >>To allow resource appending to an existing resource table, > >>remoteproc framework should get information about resource > >>table spare area. With current resource table construction, > >>remoteproc is not able to identify by itself any free location. > >>This patch introduces a new resource type named RSC_SPARE which > >>allows firmware to define room for resource table extension. > >>Defined spare area will be used by remtoreproc to extend resource > >>table. > >> > > > >We don't need a dummy type for keeping track of the available room in > >the resource table in the loaded firmware. All we need to do is to look > >at the sh_size of the .resource_table section, which actually is what's > >returned in tablesz. > > > This is the size of the .resource_table section. Doesn't means that only > resource table is stored in. I'm not sure I'm getting the details of what you're saying here. Do you mean that there could be other things in the resource_table section or just the fact that it being a section doesn't give any information about how much space this thing will have in loaded form. > Today this is the assumption and we force firmware to respect this. > I find it unfortunate that this was put in section and that we just have to make assumptions on how this projects onto the loaded form. > >So the spare size is the difference between tablesz and the end of the > >last resource and if you need you can pad this when composing the > >firmware. > > > Proposal was to clearly identify the area for extension (whatever > .resource_table section is done). But if you agree on the fact > .resource_tabel section constains only resource table and eventualy room for > extension, I can indeed simply room detection. > Could you describe your use case for programmatically generate a resource table for a firmware without a .resource_table? I would like to understand the contract between the driver and the firmware when it comes to what should go into the resource table. Regards, Bjorn