The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
Cc: andersson@kernel.org, afd@ti.com, hnagalla@ti.com, jm@ti.com,
	jan.kiszka@siemens.com, christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	daniel.baluta@nxp.com, iuliana.prodan@nxp.com,
	arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com, tanmay.shah@amd.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] remoteproc: core: Do not process carveout and devmem rsc in attach mode
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:34:30 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aIjqBi3X4hWGsJLP@p14s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250724133144.3776839-1-b-padhi@ti.com>

Hi Beleswar,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 07:01:44PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote:
> When attaching to a remote processor, it is implied that the rproc was
> booted by an external entity. Thus, it's carveout and devmem resources
> would already have been processed by the external entity during boot.
> 
> Re-allocating the carveouts in Linux (without proper flags) would zero
> out the memory regions used by the firmware and can lead to undefined
> behaviour. And there is no need to re-map the memory regions for devmem
> resources as well.
> 
> Therefore, do not process the carveout and devmem resources in attach
> mode by not appending them to the rproc->carveouts and rproc->mappings
> lists respectively.
> 

I think what you are proposing is logical.  Arnaud, Daniel, Iuliana and Tanmay -
please test this on your platforms.  I will also need another TB from someone at
TI.

Regards,
Mathieu

> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@ti.com>
> ---
> Testing:
> 1. Tested IPC with remoteprocs in attach mode in TI platforms.
> [However, TI K3 platforms do not use resource table for carveouts,
> all the memory regions are reserved statically in Device Tree.]
> 
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 825672100528..ef709a5fa73c 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -640,6 +640,20 @@ static int rproc_handle_devmem(struct rproc *rproc, void *ptr,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * When attaching to a remote processor, it is implied that the rproc
> +	 * was booted by an external entity. Thus, it's devmem resources would
> +	 * already have been mapped by the external entity during boot. There is
> +	 * no need to re-map the memory regions here.
> +	 *
> +	 * Skip adding the devmem rsc to the mapping list and return without
> +	 * complaining.
> +	 */
> +	if (rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) {
> +		dev_info(dev, "skipping devmem rsc in attach mode\n");
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	mapping = kzalloc(sizeof(*mapping), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!mapping)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -839,6 +853,22 @@ static int rproc_handle_carveout(struct rproc *rproc,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * When attaching to a remote processor, it is implied that the rproc
> +	 * was booted by an external entity. Thus, it's carveout resources would
> +	 * already have been allocated by the external entity during boot.
> +	 * Re-allocating the carveouts here (without proper flags) would zero
> +	 * out the memory regions used by the firmware and can lead to undefined
> +	 * behaviour.
> +	 *
> +	 * Skip adding the carveouts to the alloc list and return without
> +	 * complaining.
> +	 */
> +	if (rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) {
> +		dev_info(dev, "skipping carveout allocation in attach mode\n");
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	dev_dbg(dev, "carveout rsc: name: %s, da 0x%x, pa 0x%x, len 0x%x, flags 0x%x\n",
>  		rsc->name, rsc->da, rsc->pa, rsc->len, rsc->flags);
>  
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-29 15:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-24 13:31 [RFC PATCH] remoteproc: core: Do not process carveout and devmem rsc in attach mode Beleswar Padhi
2025-07-29 15:34 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2025-08-01 16:31   ` Tanmay Shah
2025-07-30 18:44 ` Andrew Davis

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=aIjqBi3X4hWGsJLP@p14s \
    --to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=afd@ti.com \
    --cc=andersson@kernel.org \
    --cc=arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com \
    --cc=b-padhi@ti.com \
    --cc=christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr \
    --cc=daniel.baluta@nxp.com \
    --cc=hnagalla@ti.com \
    --cc=iuliana.prodan@nxp.com \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=jm@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tanmay.shah@amd.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