netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: airoha: npu: Add airoha_npu_soc

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: <aO4WmeuoAcZLFSBo@lore-desk>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:23:37 +0200
From: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: airoha: npu: Add
 airoha_npu_soc_data struct

> On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 03:58:50PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > @@ -182,49 +192,53 @@ static int airoha_npu_send_msg(struct airoha_npu *npu, int func_id,
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > -				   struct resource *res)
> > +static int airoha_npu_load_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *addr,
> > +				    const struct airoha_npu_fw *fw_info)
> >  {
> >  	const struct firmware *fw;
> > -	void __iomem *addr;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > -	ret = request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32, dev);
> > +	ret = request_firmware(&fw, fw_info->name, dev);
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret == -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret;
> >  
> > -	if (fw->size > NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32_MAX_SIZE) {
> > +	if (fw->size > fw_info->max_size) {
> >  		dev_err(dev, "%s: fw size too overlimit (%zu)\n",
> > -			NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_RV32, fw->size);
> > +			fw_info->name, fw->size);
> >  		ret = -E2BIG;
> >  		goto out;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	addr = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > -	if (IS_ERR(addr)) {
> > -		ret = PTR_ERR(addr);
> > -		goto out;
> > -	}
> > -
> >  	memcpy_toio(addr, fw->data, fw->size);
> > +out:
> >  	release_firmware(fw);
> >  
> > -	ret = request_firmware(&fw, NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA, dev);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret == -ENOENT ? -EPROBE_DEFER : ret;
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> >  
> > -	if (fw->size > NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA_MAX_SIZE) {
> > -		dev_err(dev, "%s: fw size too overlimit (%zu)\n",
> > -			NPU_EN7581_FIRMWARE_DATA, fw->size);
> > -		ret = -E2BIG;
> > -		goto out;
> > -	}
> > +static int airoha_npu_run_firmware(struct device *dev, void __iomem *base,
> > +				   struct resource *res)
> > +{
> > +	const struct airoha_npu_soc_data *soc;
> > +	void __iomem *addr;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> > -	memcpy_toio(base + REG_NPU_LOCAL_SRAM, fw->data, fw->size);
> > -out:
> > -	release_firmware(fw);
> > +	soc = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > +	if (!soc)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > -	return ret;
> > +	addr = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(addr))
> > +		return PTR_ERR(addr);
> > +
> > +	/* Load rv32 npu firmware */
> > +	ret = airoha_npu_load_firmware(dev, addr, &soc->fw_rv32);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	/* Load data npu firmware */
> > +	return airoha_npu_load_firmware(dev, base + REG_NPU_LOCAL_SRAM,
> > +					&soc->fw_data);
> 
> Hi Lorenzo,

Hi Simon,

> 
> There are two calls to airoha_npu_load_firmware() above.
> And, internally, airoha_npu_load_firmware() will call release_firmware()
> if an error is encountered.
> 
> But should release_firmware() be called for the firmware requested
> by the first call to airoha_npu_load_firmware() if the second call fails?
> Such clean-up seems to have been the case prior to this patch.

release_firmware() is intended to release the resources allocated by the
corresponding call to request_firmware() in airoha_npu_load_firmware().
According to my understanding we always run release_firmware() in
airoha_npu_load_firmware() before returning to the caller. Even before this
patch we run release_firmware() on the 'first' firmware image before requesting
the second one. Am I missing something?

> 
> Also, not strictly related. Should release_firmware() be called (twice)
> when the driver is removed?

For the above reasons, it is not important to call release_firmware() removing
the module. Agree?

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> >  }
> >  
> >  static irqreturn_t airoha_npu_mbox_handler(int irq, void *npu_instance)
> 
> ...

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)