Message-ID: <c675a73c-4fa0-976f-9fe9-6a66bf5620c3@nxp.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 19:04:41 +0300
From:   Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "S.J. Wang" <shengjiu.wang@....com>
Cc:     "Iuliana Prodan (OSS)" <iuliana.prodan@....nxp.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@....com>,
        Mpuaudiosw <Mpuaudiosw@....com>, linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        LnxRevLi <LnxRevLi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: imx_dsp_rproc: add module parameter to
 ignore ready flag from remote processor

On 7/19/2023 6:47 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 07:44:49PM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
>> On 7/18/2023 6:48 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:30:43AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote:
>>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2023 8:34 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>> Hi Iuliana,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:42:51AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan (OSS) wrote:
>>>>>> From: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are cases when we want to test samples that do not
>>>>>> reply with FW READY message, after fw is loaded and the
>>>>>> remote processor started.
>>>>> This seems like a bug to me - where is this FW comes from?
>>>> The firmware is a generic sample from Zephyr repo: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table
>>>>
>>>> There is no bug, this is how the application was written.
>>> But how did it ever worked before?
>> It never worked on this kind of samples (and it was never tested like this).
>> We used only applications written by us (NXP) with the
>> requirements/limitations we know we have.
>> Now, we want to use also generic firmware/samples (from Zephyr) and we face
>> other kind of limitations.
>>
> Right, we can't expect firmware written for a totally different OS to work out
> of the box on Linux, and vice versa.
>
>>>    And how does having a module flag to
>>> characterize each FW implementation that springs up in the field can scale (and
>>> be maintainable)?
>> I believe the FW_READY reply is a limitation introduced by imx_dsp_rproc.
>> We cannot expect all firmware to give a FW_READY reply.
>> So, to keep both usecases (internal firmware and generic sample) I added
>> this flag.
>>
> What happens when a third, fourth and fifth protocol variation get introduced?
> Adding flags just doesn't scale.
>
>>>> Rather than modifying a generic sample for i.MX usecase, I prefer doing an
>>>> "insmod imx_dsp_rproc.ko ignore_dsp_ready=1" just for this sample.
>>> We already have a "no_mailbox" flag for cases where the FW doesn't need to
>>> communicate with the main processor.
>> "no_mailbox" - no IPC between cores;
>> "ignore_dsp_ready" - we have IPC between cores, but the remote processor
>> doesn't send a fw_ready reply
>> These two can be combine, but for "no_mailbox" will do some useless memory
>> allocations.
>>
>> When I added the "no_mailbox" flag, the problem was still FW_READY.
>>>    What happens when some FW implementation
>>> requires a three-way handshake?  How many flags do we spin off?
>>>
>>> As I said above this approach is not sustainable.  I suggest to either fix the
>>> FW (it doesn't work with upstream in its present form anyway) or start using the
>>> config space as described here [1] to dynamically probe the characteristics of
>>> the FW being loaded.  Whichever option you chose, the FW needs to be updated and
>>> the former is a lot more simple.
>> I don't think I can modify a generic sample, used on other targets to send a
>> FW_READY reply.
>> How will it be handled on other platforms, if their *_rproc are not
>> expecting this kind of message?
>>
> The only way forward is to come up with a standard specification to describe the
> protocol to use, the same way it is done for virtIO for example.

But why was this FW_READY added in the first place?
@S.J, can you, please, help here?
What is the use case for this custom message?

My proposal is to remove this reply.
This was added for a custom firmware/sample, that is not publicly 
accessible  - S.J, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, for imx_rproc (used for M4 or M7 secondary core) we don't have 
this FW_READY reply.


>> Thanks,
>> Iulia
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mathieu
>>>
>>> [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/remoteproc.h#L298
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Iulia
>>>>
>>>>>> In these cases, do not wait for a confirmation from the remote processor
>>>>>> at start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Added "ignore_dsp_ready" flag while inserting the module to ignore
>>>>>> remote processor reply after start.
>>>>>> By default, this is off - do not ignore reply from rproc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@....com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> This was discovered while testing openamp_rsc_table sample from Zephyr
>>>>>> repo (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have IPC, but the remote proc doesn't send a FW_READY reply.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
>>>>>> index b5634507d953..ed89de2f3b98 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
>>>>>> @@ -36,7 +36,13 @@ module_param_named(no_mailboxes, no_mailboxes, int, 0644);
>>>>>>     MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_mailboxes,
>>>>>>     		 "There is no mailbox between cores, so ignore remote proc reply after start, default is 0 (off).");
>>>>>> +static unsigned int imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready;
>>>>>> +module_param_named(ignore_dsp_ready, imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready, int, 0644);
>>>>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_dsp_ready,
>>>>>> +		 "Ignore remote proc reply after start, default is 0 (off).");
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     #define REMOTE_IS_READY				BIT(0)
>>>>>> +#define REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY	BIT(1)
>>>>>>     #define REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES		500
>>>>>>     /* att flags */
>>>>>> @@ -296,6 +302,12 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_ready(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>>>     	if (!priv->rxdb_ch)
>>>>>>     		return 0;
>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>> +	 * FW_READY reply is optional/ignored, so don't wait for it.
>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>> +	if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY)
>>>>>> +		return 0;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     	for (i = 0; i < REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; i++) {
>>>>>>     		if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IS_READY)
>>>>>>     			return 0;
>>>>>> @@ -1119,6 +1131,9 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>     	else
>>>>>>     		imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init = imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc;
>>>>>> +	if (imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready)
>>>>>> +		priv->flags |= REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>     	dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc);
>>>>>>     	INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_dsp_rproc_vq_work);
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists