[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200214045725.GT3948@builder>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:57:25 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
Rishabh Bhatnagar <rishabhb@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce driver to store pil
info in IMEM
On Thu 13 Feb 18:35 PST 2020, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2020-02-10 16:50:53)
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_pil_info.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_pil_info.c
[..]
> > + mutex_lock(&reloc_mutex);
> > + _reloc = reloc;
> > + mutex_unlock(&reloc_mutex);
>
> Ah ok, I see that mutex is protecting the pointer used for everything.
> Ignore the comment above. But also, why not have every remoteproc device
> point at some imem and then search through the imem for the name? Then
> we don't need this driver or a lock that synchronizes these things.
> Ideally we could dedicate a place in imem for each remoteproc and not
> even have to search it for the string to update. Is that possible? Then
> it becomes even simpler because the DT binding can point directly at the
> address to write. It's not like the various images are changing that
> much to the point where this location in imem is actually changing,
> right?
>
I will check to see if these entries needs to be packed in the beginning
of the array, otherwise this sounds like a good idea to simplify things.
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists