linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] remoteproc: Introducing function rproc

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <e96cdfd0-5e87-6c08-c09d-5c75faa06681@st.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:29:15 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "ohad@...ery.com" <ohad@...ery.com>,
        "bjorn.andersson@...aro.org" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
CC:     "linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] remoteproc: Introducing function rproc_actuate()

Hi Mathieu,


On 7/7/20 11:00 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Introduce function rproc_actuate() that provides the same
> functionatlity as rproc_fw_boot(), but without the steps that
> involve interaction with the firmware image.  That way we can
> deal with scenarios where the remoteproc core is attaching
> to a remote processor that has already been started by another
> entity.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>

Reviewed-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...com>

Thanks,
Arnaud
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 1e8e66a25bd6..fd424662801f 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1369,7 +1369,7 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -static int __maybe_unused rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> +static int rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
>  	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>  	int ret;
> @@ -1490,6 +1490,63 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Attach to remote processor - similar to rproc_fw_boot() but without
> + * the steps that deal with the firmware image.
> + */
> +static int __maybe_unused rproc_actuate(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> +	 * just a nop
> +	 */
> +	ret = rproc_enable_iommu(rproc);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "can't enable iommu: %d\n", ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* reset max_notifyid */
> +	rproc->max_notifyid = -1;
> +
> +	/* reset handled vdev */
> +	rproc->nb_vdev = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Handle firmware resources required to attach to a remote processor.
> +	 * Because we are attaching rather than booting the remote processor,
> +	 * we expect the platform driver to properly set rproc->table_ptr.
> +	 */
> +	ret = rproc_handle_resources(rproc, rproc_loading_handlers);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to process resources: %d\n", ret);
> +		goto disable_iommu;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Allocate carveout resources associated to rproc */
> +	ret = rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(rproc);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to allocate associated carveouts: %d\n",
> +			ret);
> +		goto clean_up_resources;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = rproc_attach(rproc);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto clean_up_resources;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +
> +clean_up_resources:
> +	rproc_resource_cleanup(rproc);
> +disable_iommu:
> +	rproc_disable_iommu(rproc);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * take a firmware and boot it up.
>   *
>