linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] remoteproc: Call core functions based on synchronisation flag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a17d871a-3b3f-a462-9b2c-f9183f80a533@st.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Apr 2020 19:27:27 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>, <ohad@...ery.com>
CC:     <loic.pallardy@...com>, <s-anna@...com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <corbet@....net>,
        <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] remoteproc: Call core functions based on
 synchronisation flag



On 4/24/20 10:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Call the right core function based on whether we should synchronise
> with a remote processor or boot it from scratch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> index dda7044c4b3e..3985c084b184 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,12 @@ static inline bool rproc_needs_syncing(struct rproc *rproc)
>  static inline
>  int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->sanity_check)
>  		return rproc->ops->sanity_check(rproc, fw);

Regarding this patch I'm trying to determine whether it makes sense to have ops or
sync_ops set to null. Your[v3 01/14]  patch commit explains that ops can be null in case of
synchronisation.
But it seems deprecated with the sync_ops introduction...

And if sync_ops is null, is it still necessary to define a remoteproc device?

Regards
Arnad

>  
> @@ -81,6 +87,12 @@ int rproc_fw_sanity_check(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  static inline
>  u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->get_boot_addr)
>  		return rproc->ops->get_boot_addr(rproc, fw);
>  
> @@ -90,6 +102,12 @@ u64 rproc_get_boot_addr(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  static inline
>  int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->load)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->load(rproc, fw);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->load)
>  		return rproc->ops->load(rproc, fw);
>  
> @@ -98,6 +116,12 @@ int rproc_load_segments(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  
>  static inline int rproc_parse_fw(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->parse_fw)
>  		return rproc->ops->parse_fw(rproc, fw);
>  
> @@ -108,6 +132,13 @@ static inline
>  int rproc_handle_rsc(struct rproc *rproc, u32 rsc_type, void *rsc, int offset,
>  		     int avail)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type,
> +							   rsc, offset, avail);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->handle_rsc)
>  		return rproc->ops->handle_rsc(rproc, rsc_type, rsc, offset,
>  					      avail);
> @@ -119,6 +150,13 @@ static inline
>  struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
>  						   const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc,
> +								      fw);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table)
>  		return rproc->ops->find_loaded_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
>  
> @@ -127,6 +165,12 @@ struct resource_table *rproc_find_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc *rproc,
>  
>  static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->start)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->start(rproc);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->start)
>  		return rproc->ops->start(rproc);
>  
> @@ -135,6 +179,12 @@ static inline int rproc_start_device(struct rproc *rproc)
>  
>  static inline int rproc_stop_device(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
> +	if (rproc_needs_syncing(rproc)) {
> +		if (rproc->sync_ops && rproc->sync_ops->stop)
> +			return rproc->sync_ops->stop(rproc);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (rproc->ops && rproc->ops->stop)
>  		return rproc->ops->stop(rproc);
>  
>