linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] remoteproc: virtio: Create platform device for the remoteproc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <97d1e574-ab68-cbd8-9300-b1a81f2dc2a9@foss.st.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:23:39 +0200
From:   Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@...inx.com>,
        Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] remoteproc: virtio: Create platform device for the
 remoteproc_virtio



On 10/4/22 17:43, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:18 AM Arnaud POULIQUEN
> <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Rob,
>>
>> On 10/4/22 16:39, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 03:50:44PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>>>> Define a platform driver to manage the remoteproc virtio device as
>>>> a platform devices.
>>>>
>>>> The platform device allows to pass rproc_vdev_data platform data to
>>>> specify properties that are stored in the rproc_vdev structure.
>>>>
>>>> Such approach will allow to preserve legacy remoteproc virtio device
>>>> creation but also to probe the device using device tree mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> remoteproc_virtio.c update:
>>>>   - Add rproc_virtio_driver platform driver. The probe ops replaces
>>>>     the rproc_rvdev_add_device function.
>>>>   - All reference to the rvdev->dev has been updated to rvdev-pdev->dev.
>>>>   - rproc_rvdev_release is removed as associated to the rvdev device.
>>>>   - The use of rvdev->kref counter is replaced by get/put_device on the
>>>>     remoteproc virtio platform device.
>>>>   - The vdev device no longer increments rproc device counter.
>>>>     increment/decrement is done in rproc_virtio_probe/rproc_virtio_remove
>>>>     function in charge of the vrings allocation/free.
>>>>
>>>> remoteproc_core.c update:
>>>>   Migrate from the rvdev device to the rvdev platform device.
>>>>   From this patch, when a vdev resource is found in the resource table
>>>>   the remoteproc core register a platform device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c     |  12 +-
>>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h |   2 -
>>>>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c   | 143 ++++++++++++-----------
>>>>  include/linux/remoteproc.h               |   6 +-
>>>>  4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +/* Platform driver */
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id rproc_virtio_match[] = {
>>>> +    { .compatible = "virtio,rproc" },
>>>
>>> This is not documented. Add a binding schema if you need DT support.
>>
>>
>> Mathieu also pointed this out to me in V8, you can see the discussion here [1]
>>
>> Here is an extract:
>> "Yes I saw the warning, but for this first series it is not possible to declare
>> the associated "rproc-virtio" device in device tree.
>> So at this step it seems not make senses to create the devicetree bindings file.
>> More than that I don't know how I could justify the properties in bindings if
>> there is not driver code associated.
>>
>> So i would be in favor of not adding the bindings in this series but to define
>> bindings in the first patch of my "step 2" series; as done on my github:
>> https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commit/9616d89a4f478cf78865a244efcde108d900f69f
>> "
> 
> Okay, since I only just started checking this (in a more reliable way
> than checkpatch does).
> 
> But why do you need the DT match entry if it is not usable yet? You
> could just add that in later when the binding is defined. Review of
> the binding could say that 'virtio,rproc' should be something else and
> you'd have to change it.

Probably because I am too formatted to add a compatible when I create a driver,
this solution yet logical did not come to my mind...

I will send a fix to suppress the compatible.

Thanks,
Arnaud

> 
> Rob