| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20200430195749.GC17031@xps15>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 13:57:49 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, ohad@...ery.com, 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 Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 07:27:27PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>
>
> 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...
Your comment made me go over the logic again... If rproc_needs_syncing() is
true then we necessarily have a sync_ops. If rproc_needs_syncing() is false,
there too we automatically have an ops. As such and as you point out, checking
for rproc->sync_ops and rproc-ops is probably useless.
>
> And if sync_ops is null, is it still necessary to define a remoteproc device?
Not sure I understand your point here but with the reasonning from above it
is probably moot anyway.
>
> 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);
> >
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists