Message-ID: <CANLsYkxvTuLv8Omw-UeyPaA9g9QokmtMaMYD0eoUPo20wUuONQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:38:53 -0700
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 4/7] remoteproc: Introduce release_fw optional operation

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 at 11:14, Arnaud POULIQUEN
<arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> On 11/18/24 18:52, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 02:35:12PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> >> This patch updates the rproc_ops struct to include an optional
> >> release_fw function.
> >>
> >> The release_fw ops is responsible for releasing the remote processor
> >> firmware image. The ops is called in the following cases:
> >>
> >>  - An error occurs in rproc_start() between the loading of the segments and
> >>       the start of the remote processor.
> >>  - after stopping the remote processor.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
> >> ---
> >> Updates from version V11:
> >> - fix typo in @release_fw comment
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 5 +++++
> >>  include/linux/remoteproc.h           | 3 +++
> >>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> index 7694817f25d4..46863e1ca307 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >> @@ -1258,6 +1258,9 @@ static int rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>
> >>  static void rproc_release_fw(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>  {
> >> +    if (rproc->ops->release_fw)
> >> +            rproc->ops->release_fw(rproc);
> >> +
> >>      /* Free the copy of the resource table */
> >>      kfree(rproc->cached_table);
> >>      rproc->cached_table = NULL;
> >> @@ -1377,6 +1380,8 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>  unprepare_subdevices:
> >>      rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc);
> >>  reset_table_ptr:
> >> +    if (rproc->ops->release_fw)
> >> +            rproc->ops->release_fw(rproc);
> >>      rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table;
> >
> > I suggest the following:
> >
> > 1) Create two new functions, i.e rproc_load_fw() and rproc_release_fw().  The
> > only thing those would do is call rproc->ops->load_fw() and
> > rproc->ops->release_fw(), if they are present.  When a TEE interface is
> > available, ->load_fw() and ->release_fw() become rproc_tee_load_fw() and
> > rproc_tee_release_fw().
>
>
> I'm wondering if it should be ->preload_fw() instead of ->load_fw() ops, as the
> ->load() op already exists.
>

I agree that ->load() and ->load_fw() will lead to confusion.  I would
support ->preload_fw() but there is no obvious antonyme.

Since we already have rproc_ops::prepare() and rproc_prepare_device()
I suggest rproc_ops::prepare_fw() and rproc_prepare_fw().  The
corollary would be rproc_ops::unprepare_fw() and rproc_unprepare_fm().
That said, I'm open to other ideas should you be interested in finding
other alternatives.

> >
> > 2) Call rproc_load_fw() in rproc_boot(), just before rproc_fw_boot().  If the
> > call to rproc_fw_boot() fails, call rproc_release_fw().
> >
> > 3) The same logic applies to rproc_boot_recovery(), i.e call rproc_load_fw()
> > before rproc_start() and call rproc_release_fw() if rproc_start() fails.
>
>
> I implemented this and I'm currently testing it.
> Thise second part requires a few adjustments to work. The ->load() ops needs to
> becomes optional to not be called if the "->preload_fw()" is used.
>
> For that, I propose to return 0 in rproc_load_segments if rproc->ops->load is
> NULL and compensate by checking that at least "->preload_fw()" or ->load() is
> non-null in rproc_alloc_ops.
>

I agree.

> Thanks,
> Arnaud
>
>
> >
> > 4) Take rproc_tee_load_fw() out of rproc_tee_parse_fw().  It will now be called
> > in rproc_load_fw().
> >
> > 5) As stated above function rproc_release_fw() now calls rproc_tee_release_fw().
> > The former is already called in rproc_shutdown() so we are good in that front.
> >
> > With the above the cached_table management within the core remains the same and
> > we can get rid of patch 3.7.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >
> >>
> >>      return ret;
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> index 2e0ddcb2d792..08e0187a84d9 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >> @@ -381,6 +381,8 @@ enum rsc_handling_status {
> >>   * @panic:  optional callback to react to system panic, core will delay
> >>   *          panic at least the returned number of milliseconds
> >>   * @coredump:         collect firmware dump after the subsystem is shutdown
> >> + * @release_fw:     optional function to release the firmware image from ROM memories.
> >> + *          This function is called after stopping the remote processor or in case of an error
> >>   */
> >>  struct rproc_ops {
> >>      int (*prepare)(struct rproc *rproc);
> >> @@ -403,6 +405,7 @@ struct rproc_ops {
> >>      u64 (*get_boot_addr)(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw);
> >>      unsigned long (*panic)(struct rproc *rproc);
> >>      void (*coredump)(struct rproc *rproc);
> >> +    void (*release_fw)(struct rproc *rproc);
> >>  };
> >>
> >>  /**
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists