From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
hariprasad@chelsio.com, poswald@suse.com, santosh@chelsio.com,
jcheung@suse.com, dchang@suse.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFT 0/3] cxgb4: use request_firmware_nowait()
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:00:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140625020019.GJ27687@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140624233951.GH27687@wotan.suse.de>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:39:51AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 09:34:19AM -0700, Casey Leedom wrote:
> > On 06/24/14 08:55, Casey Leedom wrote:
> >> On 06/23/14 17:29, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > So I just did this for a normal modprobe (after the system is up):
> >
> > Jiffies Process
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 0 begin firmware load process
> > 3 request_firmware() returns
> > 7 start looking at the adapter
> > 10 finish reading the first sector of existing adapter firmware
> > 26 we've decided that we're going to upgrade the firmware
> > 28 actual firmware upgrade process starts
> > 448 we've finished halting the adapter processor
> > 451 we enter the firmware write routine
> > 8,470 we've finished erasing the firmware FLASH sectors
> > 14,336 write of new firmware is complete
> > 14,340 the new firmware load is complete
> > 14,949 the adapter processor has been restarted; new firmware running
> > 14,952 firmware upgrade process complete
> >
> > Maybe request_firmware() takes more time during the boot phase but as we
> > can see from the above timings, it's the actual firmware upgrade process
> > which takes the most time ...
>
> OK so yeah the kernel work on request_firmware() isn't what takes over a
> minute, its the actual hardware poking with the firmware it gets, and then
> doing all the things you mentioned (a port for each netdevice, etc). This is a
> particularly interesting driver, apart from this I see some code about bus
> master and loading firmware only once. Can you elaborate a bit on how that is
> designed to work? Is it that only one PCI bus master device is allowed, and
> that will do the request_firmware() for all PCI devices? I'm a bit confused
> about this part, are we sure the bus master device will probe first? We can
> surely keep all this code on the driver but it seems that if all these
> complexitities might become the norm we should consider an API for sharing a
> clean framework for it.
>
> As you noted the complexities on firmware loading, the number of different
> netdevices one device might actually have would make it impractical to try
> to do any completion on firmware on the ndo_init() with request_firmware_nowait().
> Apart from a netdev specific API to handle all this cleanly, I wonder if
> drivers like these merit getting placed by default onto the deferred_probe_active_list.
> Typically this is triggered when drivers don't have a resource a subsystem
> hasn't yet brought up, the driver returns -EPROBE_DEFER and the core driver
> infrastructure later probes these devices on a secondary list. Greg?
Actually another option to clean this up is to use platform_device_register_simple()
after the initial firmware load and start poking at stuff there. Check out
drivers/net/ethernet/8390/ne.c for an example with probe and all. I think
that can help split up the code paths quite nicely and let you do your
pre port thing there. Thoughts?
I still do have that question about bus master requirement though and ensuring
that there are no races.
Luis
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-25 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-21 0:39 [RFT 0/3] cxgb4: use request_firmware_nowait() Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-21 0:39 ` [RFT 1/3] cxgb4: make ethtool set_flash " Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-21 0:39 ` [RFT 2/3] cxgb4: make configuration load " Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-21 0:39 ` [RFT 3/3] cxgb4: make device firmware " Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-23 19:06 ` [RFT 0/3] cxgb4: " Casey Leedom
2014-06-24 0:29 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-24 15:55 ` Casey Leedom
2014-06-24 16:34 ` Casey Leedom
2014-06-24 23:39 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-25 2:00 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2014-06-25 21:51 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-06-26 0:08 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
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=20140625020019.GJ27687@wotan.suse.de \
--to=mcgrof@suse.com \
--cc=dchang@suse.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hariprasad@chelsio.com \
--cc=jcheung@suse.com \
--cc=leedom@chelsio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=poswald@suse.com \
--cc=santosh@chelsio.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).