linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in start

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: <20210601172250.GD1759269@xps15>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:22:50 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To:     Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in
 start

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 07:03:06PM -0500, Suman Anna wrote:
> Refactor out the mailbox request and associated ping logic code
> from k3_r5_rproc_start() function into its own separate function
> so that it can be re-used in the soon to be added .attach() ops
> callback.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 66 ++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>

Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 2975393ebacd..e7e1ca71763e 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -376,6 +376,44 @@ static inline int k3_r5_core_run(struct k3_r5_core *core)
>  				       0, PROC_BOOT_CTRL_FLAG_R5_CORE_HALT);
>  }
>  
> +static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +	struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
> +	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
> +	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	client->dev = dev;
> +	client->tx_done = NULL;
> +	client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback;
> +	client->tx_block = false;
> +	client->knows_txdone = false;
> +
> +	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
> +		ret = -EBUSY;
> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
> +			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
> +	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
> +	 *
> +	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
> +	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
> +	 */
> +	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
> +		mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * The R5F cores have controls for both a reset and a halt/run. The code
>   * execution from DDR requires the initial boot-strapping code to be run
> @@ -495,38 +533,14 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
>  	struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
>  	struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster;
> -	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
>  	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
>  	struct k3_r5_core *core;
>  	u32 boot_addr;
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	client->dev = dev;
> -	client->tx_done = NULL;
> -	client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback;
> -	client->tx_block = false;
> -	client->knows_txdone = false;
> -
> -	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
> -	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
> -		ret = -EBUSY;
> -		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
> -			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
> +	ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
> +	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> -	}
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
> -	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
> -	 *
> -	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
> -	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
> -	 */
> -	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
> -		goto put_mbox;
> -	}
>  
>  	boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr;
>  	/* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */
> -- 
> 2.30.1
>