Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_fw_boot()

Mathieu Poirier
2020-05-15T19:46:57Z

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:10:55PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 08 May 14:27 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:33:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
> > > > that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
> > > > synchronising with a remote processor.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > > index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > > > @@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> > > > + * boot or synchronise with a remote processor.
> > > > */
> > > > -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > > > +static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > >
> > > Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with
> > > fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw"
> > > in this function are valid anymore.
> >
> > That is right, all firmware related operations in this function are found in
> > remoteproc_internal.h where the value of rproc->sync_with_mcu is checked before
> > moving forward. That allows us to avoid introducing a new function similar to
> > rproc_fw_boot() but without firmware operations or peppering the code with if
> > statements.
> >
>
> As I wrote in my other reply, the two mechanisms seems to consist of the
> following steps:
>
> boot the core:
> 1) request firmware
> 2) prepare device
> 3) parse fw
> 4) handle resources
> 5) allocate carveouts
> 6) load segments
> 7) find resource table
> 8) prepare subdevices
> 9) power on
> 10) start subdevices
>
> sync:
> 1) prepare device (?)
> 2) handle resources
> 3) allocate carveouts (?)
> 4) prepare subdevices
> 5) attach
> 6) start subdevices
>
> Rather than relying on the state flag and missing ops will turn the
> first list into the second list I conceptually prefer having two
> separate functions that are easy to reason about.

I reflected long and hard about doing just that...

>
> But I haven't done any refactoring or implemented this, so in practice
> the two might just be a lot of duplication(?)

Exactly - duplication and maintenance are my prime concern. Right now some
functions in the OFFLINE -> RUNNING are clearly not needed when dealing with a
DETACHED -> RUNNING scenarios, but with I am convinced people will find ways to
do something creative with the callbacks. In the end I fear the new functions
we spin off to deal with DETACHED -> RUNNING scenarios will end up looking very
similar to the current implementation.

With that in mind I simply did all the work in remoteproc_internal.h and left
the core functions intact.

We can try spinning off new functions in the next revision, just to test my
theory and see how much gets duplicated.

>
> > >
> > > > {
> > > > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> > > > const char *name = rproc->firmware;
> > > > @@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > return ret;
> > > >
> > > > - dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
> > > > + if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc))
> > >
> > > Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where
> > > passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"?
> >
> > It can but I specifically decided to use rproc_needs_syncing() to be consistent
> > with the rest of the patchset. That way all we need to do is grep for
> > rproc_needs_syncing to get all the places where a decision about synchronising
> > with a remote processor is made.
> >
>
> Conceptually we have a single "to sync or not to sync", but I think
> we're invoking rproc_needs_syncing() 8 times during rproc_fw_boot() and
> each of those operations may or may not do anything.

As I said above, I'll try spinning off new functions in the next revision. From
there we can decide how best to move forward.

>
> There are certain operations where I see it makes sense for a driver to
> either implement or not, but I think that e.g. for a rproc in OFFLINE
> state we should just require ops->start to be specified - because it
> doesn't make sense to enter rproc_start() if ops->start is a nop.

At this time ops->start() doesn't have to be specified... But as you say it
won't do much good and this is something we can easily spot when reviewing
patches.

Thanks for the review,
Mathieu

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > > > + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
> > > > + name, fw->size);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> > > > @@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> > > > + ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p);
> > > >
> > > > release_firmware(firmware_p);
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > >