[RFC 1/8] drivers: add generic remoteproc framework

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:52:30PM +0000, Grosen, Mark wrote:

quoted

From: Grant Likely
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:50 PM

Grant, thanks for the feedback. I'll try to answer one of your
questions below and leave the rest for Ohad.

Mark
 

quoted

quoted

+Every remoteproc implementation must provide these handlers:
+
+struct rproc_ops {
+	int (*start)(struct rproc *rproc, u64 bootaddr);
+	int (*stop)(struct rproc *rproc);
+};
+
+The ->start() handler takes a rproc handle and an optional bootaddr

argument,

quoted

+and should power on the device and boot it (using the bootaddr

argument

quoted

+if the hardware requires one).

Naive question: Why is bootaddr an argument?  Wouldn't rproc drivers
keep track of the boot address in their driver private data?

 
Our AMPs (remote processors) have a variety of boot mechanisms that vary
across the different SoCs (yes, TI likes HW diversity). In some cases, the
boot address is more like an entry point and that comes from the firmware,
so it is not a static attribute of a driver. Correct me if I misunderstood
your question.

More to the point, I would expect the boot_address to be a property of
the rproc instance because it represents the configuration of the
remote processor.  It seems odd that the caller of ->start would know
better than the rproc driver about the entry point of the processor.

g.