[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bb1b93f7-a06d-e173-50f9-cc6ba38a29f1@st.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:02:56 +0200
From: loic pallardy <loic.pallardy@...com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC: <ohad@...ery.com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel@...inux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/19] remoteproc: Add new resource type for resource
table spare bytes
On 09/15/2016 07:54 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 31 Aug 13:50 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote:
>
>> To allow resource appending to an existing resource table,
>> remoteproc framework should get information about resource
>> table spare area. With current resource table construction,
>> remoteproc is not able to identify by itself any free location.
>> This patch introduces a new resource type named RSC_SPARE which
>> allows firmware to define room for resource table extension.
>> Defined spare area will be used by remtoreproc to extend resource
>> table.
>>
>
> We don't need a dummy type for keeping track of the available room in
> the resource table in the loaded firmware. All we need to do is to look
> at the sh_size of the .resource_table section, which actually is what's
> returned in tablesz.
>
This is the size of the .resource_table section. Doesn't means that only
resource table is stored in. Today this is the assumption and we force
firmware to respect this.
> So the spare size is the difference between tablesz and the end of the
> last resource and if you need you can pad this when composing the
> firmware.
>
Proposal was to clearly identify the area for extension (whatever
.resource_table section is done). But if you agree on the fact
.resource_tabel section constains only resource table and eventualy room
for extension, I can indeed simply room detection.
Regards,
Loic
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists