From: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
od@zcrc.me, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Add module parameter 'auto_boot'
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 18:38:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <P4T5KQ.W5BP830SCRPW1@crapouillou.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120223701.GF4137289@xps15>
Hi Mathieu,
Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 15:37, Mathieu Poirier
<mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:50:56AM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>> Until now the remoteproc core would always default to trying to
>> boot the
>> remote processor at startup. The various remoteproc drivers could
>> however override that setting.
>>
>> Whether or not we want the remote processor to boot, really depends
>> on
>> the nature of the processor itself - a processor built into a WiFi
>> chip
>> will need to be booted for the WiFi hardware to be usable, for
>> instance,
>> but a general-purpose co-processor does not have any predeterminated
>> function, and as such we cannot assume that the OS will want the
>> processor to be booted - yet alone that we have a single do-it-all
>> firmware to load.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly you have various remote processors that use
> the same firmware
> but are serving different purposes - is this correct?
That's the opposite actually. I have one remote processor which is
general-purpose, and as such userspace may or may not want it started
at boot time - depending on what it wants to do with it. The kernel
shouldn't decide itself whether or not the remote processor should be
started, because that's policy.
>
>> Add a 'auto_boot' module parameter that instructs the remoteproc
>> whether
>> or not it should auto-boot the remote processor, which will default
>> to
>> "true" to respect the previous behaviour.
>>
>
> Given that the core can't be a module I wonder if this isn't
> something that
> would be better off in the specific platform driver or the device
> tree... Other
> people might have an opinion as well.
Hardcoded in the platform driver or flagged in the device tree, doesn't
change the fundamental problem - it should be up to the userspace to
decide whether or not the remote processor should boot.
Cheers,
-Paul
>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 7 ++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> index dab2c0f5caf0..687b1bfd49db 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>> @@ -44,6 +44,11 @@
>>
>> #define HIGH_BITS_MASK 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
>>
>> +static bool auto_boot = true;
>> +module_param(auto_boot, bool, 0400);
>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(auto_boot,
>> + "Auto-boot the remote processor [default=true]");
>> +
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(rproc_list_mutex);
>> static LIST_HEAD(rproc_list);
>> static struct notifier_block rproc_panic_nb;
>> @@ -2176,7 +2181,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev,
>> const char *name,
>> return NULL;
>>
>> rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
>> - rproc->auto_boot = true;
>> + rproc->auto_boot = auto_boot;
>> rproc->elf_class = ELFCLASSNONE;
>> rproc->elf_machine = EM_NONE;
>>
>> --
>> 2.29.2
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-21 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-15 11:50 [PATCH] remoteproc: Add module parameter 'auto_boot' Paul Cercueil
2020-11-20 22:37 ` Mathieu Poirier
2020-11-20 23:06 ` Suman Anna
2020-11-21 18:47 ` Paul Cercueil
2020-11-22 17:42 ` Suman Anna
2020-11-21 18:38 ` Paul Cercueil [this message]
2020-11-22 5:28 ` Bjorn Andersson
2020-11-23 22:44 ` Mathieu Poirier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=P4T5KQ.W5BP830SCRPW1@crapouillou.net \
--to=paul@crapouillou.net \
--cc=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=od@zcrc.me \
--cc=ohad@wizery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox