[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160809124631.GB5243@dell>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:46:31 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: loic pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...inux.com, patrice.chotard@...com, ohad@...ery.com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] remoteproc: core: Add function to over-ride current
resource table
On Mon, 08 Aug 2016, loic pallardy wrote:
> Hi Lee
>
> On 08/04/2016 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > Most of the new resource table handling function are now in place, so
> > it's time to put it all together. Once new resource table information
> > has been requested, the structures will be held in a holding pen until
> > boot-time. During boot-time rproc_apply_resource_overrides() will be
> > invoked which in turn will pull the new information out of the holding
> > pen and edit the table accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 111350e..6b4e29a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1035,6 +1035,65 @@ rproc_add_resource_table_entry(struct rproc *rproc,
> > return table;
> > }
> >
> > +static struct resource_table*
> > +rproc_apply_resource_overrides(struct rproc *rproc,
> > + struct resource_table **orig_table,
> > + int *tablesz)
> > +{
> > + struct rproc_request_resource *resource;
> > + struct resource_table *table = *orig_table;
> > + int size = *tablesz;
> > +
> > + if (!table && size != 0) {
> > + dev_err(&rproc->dev, "No table present but table size is set\n");
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + }
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
> > +
> > + rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, size);
> It will be good to find a way to not dump resource table if debug is not
> activated. For the same reason as you mentioned in your patch 8, resource
> table parsing will waste CPUS cycles.
+1
I've been meaning to fix this, thanks.
> > +
> > + if (!table) {
> > + size = sizeof(*table);
> > + table = devm_kzalloc(&rproc->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!table) {
> > + table = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + table->ver = 1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(resource, &rproc->override_resources, node) {
> > + int updated = 0;
> > +
> > + /* If we already have a table, update it with the new values. */
> > + updated = rproc_update_resource_table_entry(rproc, resource,
> > + table, size);
> > + if (updated < 0) {
> > + table = ERR_PTR(updated);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + if (updated)
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + /* Didn't find matching resource entry -- creating a new one. */
> > + table = rproc_add_resource_table_entry(rproc, resource,
> > + table, &size);
> > + if (IS_ERR(table))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + *orig_table = table;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rproc_dump_resource_table(rproc, table, size);
> ditto
Ditto
> > +
> > + *tablesz = size;
> > +
> > + out:
> > + mutex_unlock(&rproc->lock);
> > + return table;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> > */
> > @@ -1153,6 +1212,12 @@ static void rproc_fw_config_virtio(const struct firmware *fw, void *context)
> > if (!table)
> > goto out;
> >
> > + if (!list_empty(&rproc->override_resources)) {
> > + table = rproc_apply_resource_overrides(rproc, &table, &tablesz);
> > + if (IS_ERR(table))
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > rproc->table_csum = crc32(0, table, tablesz);
> >
> > /*
> >
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists