Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] remoteproc: Call core functions based on synchronisation flag

Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-05T22:10:52Z

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 01:14:59PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> hi Mathieu,
>
> On 4/30/20 9:57 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:27:27PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/24/20 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> Call the right core function based on whether we should synchronise
> >>> with a remote processor or boot it from scratch.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> index dda7044c4b3e..3985c084b184 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> >>> @@ -72,6 +72,12 @@ static inline bool rproc_needs_syncing(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> static inline
> >>> int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->sanity_check)
> >>> return rproc->ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> >>
> >> Regarding this patch I'm trying to determine whether it makes sense to have ops or
> >> sync_ops set to null. Your[v3 01/14] patch commit explains that ops can be null in case of
> >> synchronisation.
> >> But it seems deprecated with the sync_ops introduction...
> >
> > Your comment made me go over the logic again... If rproc_needs_syncing() is
> > true then we necessarily have a sync_ops. If rproc_needs_syncing() is false,
> > there too we automatically have an ops. As such and as you point out, checking
> > for rproc->sync_ops and rproc-ops is probably useless.
> An Additional test in rproc_set_state_machine should be sufficient, something like that:
> /* rproc->ops struct is mandatory if at least one sync flag is false */
> if (!rproc->ops && !(sync_flags.on_init &&
> sync_flags.after_stop && sync_flags.after_crash))
> return -EINVAL;

Right, something like that.

>
> >
> >>
> >> And if sync_ops is null, is it still necessary to define a remoteproc device?
> >
> > Not sure I understand your point here but with the reasonning from above it
> > is probably moot anyway.
> Just to mention that a platform device with ops and ops_sync null seems like nonsense

We agree.

>
> Regards,
> Arnaud
> >
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Arnad
> >>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -81,6 +87,12 @@ int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> static inline
> >>> u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
> >>> return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -90,6 +102,12 @@ u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> static inline
> >>> int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->load)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->load(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->load)
> >>> return rproc->ops->load(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -98,6 +116,12 @@ int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->parse_fw)
> >>> return rproc->ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -108,6 +132,13 @@ static inline
> >>> int rproc_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void *rsc, int offset,
> >>> int avail)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type,
> >>> + rsc, offset, avail);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
> >>> return rproc->ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type, rsc, offset,
> >>> avail);
> >>> @@ -119,6 +150,13 @@ static inline
> >>> struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> >>> const struct firmware *fw)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc,
> >>> + fw);
> >>> + return NULL;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> >>> return rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -127,6 +165,12 @@ struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->start)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->start(rproc);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->start)
> >>> return rproc->ops->start(rproc);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -135,6 +179,12 @@ static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>
> >>> static inline int rproc_stop_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>> {
> >>> + if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> >>> + if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->stop)
> >>> + return rproc->sync_ops->stop(rproc);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->stop)
> >>> return rproc->ops->stop(rproc);
> >>>
> >>>