From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com (fllv0016.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1703E12C460; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723794860; cv=none; b=VP3ipTQj9HRShOPpC4drDrp4Mdwyha3+HM7z5Ko/P3yLxxrZmQ9pbyN7RdtoyFEFIi7lpB+pAEylgMo+URZNMFRxTxHzq4v9cQCyVUEzTae39ckklb+OCDFGeo9f9Ki06vpX2DzcO4zNJX3Jh2nLOitihExlY6u2Me/E1vH3APY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1723794860; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bhryEJoTl5GL1UD0luwSHefebQdolxnc4qJmQ/14J2c=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ZOCXF37cjusnSRY4oM1xkjGzUy7Mt7AEhEGhpHHr4MFBa0IOB6JMf24g52c972SB5wTdtRRyxUAa/fNWLmaGxlxM2Nf+Zp0mjl25GaL0GwIFuHeehqgRqOnirrKKVPBvnRzHsMWqbjNCTiA3DtEvNlz7Ey9t8uWfmHwzJz888wY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=v+8L5RTS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.19.142 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="v+8L5RTS" Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47G7sDvC052102; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 02:54:13 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1723794853; bh=Ik/ZdRimZKjsbKzIm3/uG54pWJF/rEJY10bDBLHSQc4=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=v+8L5RTS5POTalqW46O70vH7fwkYOwzAu0FHOYFeB0lQ1fWgr8FnS9FJjWO3ZUH0Z 5htHbNpWp7xfTSbb2msMr9yyw8KGoD2/LpXXZQEb35oM6MMh38yOoy/DTQJpPJnSGQ VoMvDs1PjR+2wFVt9NCwo9mvQFas0vY/Figlr8WQ= Received: from DLEE104.ent.ti.com (dlee104.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.34]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 47G7sDUp105958 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Aug 2024 02:54:13 -0500 Received: from DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) by DLEE104.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 02:54:04 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DLEE100.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 02:54:04 -0500 Received: from [10.249.130.61] ([10.249.130.61]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47G7s0hv100175; Fri, 16 Aug 2024 02:54:01 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:23:59 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Acquire mailbox handle during probe routine To: Mathieu Poirier CC: , , , , , , References: <20240808074127.2688131-1-b-padhi@ti.com> <20240808074127.2688131-3-b-padhi@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Beleswar Prasad Padhi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Hi Mathieu, On 14-08-2024 21:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Hi Beleswar, On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01: 11: 26PM +0530, Beleswar > Padhi wrote: > Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do > not release handle > in stop/detach routine or error paths. This > removes the redundant > requests for > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > Report Suspicious > > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > Hi Beleswar, > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01:11:26PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote: > > Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do not release handle > > in stop/detach routine or error paths. This removes the redundant > > requests for mbox handle later during rproc start/attach. This also > > allows to defer remoteproc driver's probe if mailbox is not probed yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 78 +++++++++--------------- > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > index 57067308b3c0..8a63a9360c0f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > @@ -194,6 +194,10 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback(struct mbox_client *client, void *data) > > const char *name = kproc->rproc->name; > > u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data); > > > > + /* Do not forward message from a detached core */ > > + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) > > + return; > > + > > dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg); > > > > switch (msg) { > > @@ -229,6 +233,10 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid) > > mbox_msg_t msg = (mbox_msg_t)vqid; > > int ret; > > > > + /* Do not forward message to a detached core */ > > + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) > > + return; > > + > > /* send the index of the triggered virtqueue in the mailbox payload */ > > ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)msg); > > if (ret < 0) > > @@ -399,12 +407,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc) > > client->knows_txdone = false; > > > > kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0); > > - if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) { > > - ret = -EBUSY; > > - dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", > > - PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox)); > > - return ret; > > - } > > + if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox), > > + "mbox_request_channel failed\n"); > > > > /* > > * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now; > > @@ -552,10 +557,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > u32 boot_addr; > > int ret; > > > > - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > - > > boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr; > > /* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */ > > dev_dbg(dev, "booting R5F core using boot addr = 0x%x\n", boot_addr); > > @@ -564,7 +565,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > core = kproc->core; > > ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(core->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0); > > if (ret) > > - goto put_mbox; > > + return ret; > > > > /* unhalt/run all applicable cores */ > > if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) { > > @@ -580,13 +581,12 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > if (core != core0 && core0->rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) { > > dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n", > > __func__); > > - ret = -EPERM; > > - goto put_mbox; > > + return -EPERM; > > } > > > > ret = k3_r5_core_run(core); > > if (ret) > > - goto put_mbox; > > + return ret; > > } > > > > return 0; > > @@ -596,8 +596,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > if (k3_r5_core_halt(core)) > > dev_warn(core->dev, "core halt back failed\n"); > > } > > -put_mbox: > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > return ret; > > } > > > > @@ -658,8 +656,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > > goto out; > > } > > > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > - > > return 0; > > > > unroll_core_halt: > > @@ -674,42 +670,22 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > > /* > > * Attach to a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) > > * > > - * The R5F attach callback only needs to request the mailbox, the remote > > - * processor is already booted, so there is no need to issue any TI-SCI > > - * commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked > > - * only in IPC-only mode. > > + * The R5F attach callback is a NOP. The remote processor is already booted, and > > + * all required resources have been acquired during probe routine, so there is > > + * no need to issue any TI-SCI commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. > > + * This callback is invoked only in IPC-only mode and exists because > > + * rproc_validate() checks for its existence. > > Excellent documentation. Thanks! > > > */ > > -static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) > > -{ > > - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > > - struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > > - int ret; > > - > > - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > - > > - dev_info(dev, "R5F core initialized in IPC-only mode\n"); > > - return 0; > > -} > > +static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } > > > > /* > > * Detach from a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) > > * > > - * The R5F detach callback performs the opposite operation to attach callback > > - * and only needs to release the mailbox, the R5F cores are not stopped and > > - * will be left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked > > - * only in IPC-only mode. > > + * The R5F detach callback is a NOP. The R5F cores are not stopped and will be > > + * left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked only in > > + * IPC-only mode and exists for sanity sake. > > I would add the part about detach() being a NOP to attach() above... > > > */ > > -static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) > > -{ > > - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > > - struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > > - > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > - dev_info(dev, "R5F core deinitialized in IPC-only mode\n"); > > - return 0; > > -} > > +static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } > > ... and just remove this. Thanks for the comments. But dropping k3_r5_rproc_detach() would mean we would get -EINVAL[1] while trying to detach the core from sysfs[0]. Is it expected? [0]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c#n202 [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#n1752 > > Otherwise this patch looks good. > > > > > /* > > * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback and is used > > @@ -1278,6 +1254,10 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > > kproc->rproc = rproc; > > core->rproc = rproc; > > > > + ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > ret = k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(kproc); > > if (ret < 0) > > goto out; > > @@ -1392,6 +1372,8 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data) > > } > > } > > > > + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > + > > rproc_del(rproc); > > > > k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc); > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >