RE: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver
From: Ben Levinsky <hidden>
Date: 2020-10-06 21:46:44
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-remoteproc, lkml
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Auchter <redacted> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:32 PM To: Ben Levinsky <redacted> Cc: Ed T. Mooring <redacted>; sunnyliangjy@gmail.com; punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp; Stefano Stabellini [off-list ref]; Michal Simek [off-list ref]; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; mathieu.poirier@linaro.org; linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux- kernel@vger.kernel.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; linux-arm- kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 07:15:49PM +0000, Ben Levinsky wrote:quoted
Hi Michael, Thanks for the review< ... snip ... >quoted
quoted
quoted
+ z_rproc = rproc->priv; + z_rproc->dev.release = zynqmp_r5_release;This is the only field of z_rproc->dev that's actually initialized, and this device is not registered with the core at all, so zynqmp_r5_release will never be called. Since it doesn't look like there's a need to create this additional device, I'd suggest: - Dropping the struct device from struct zynqmp_r5_rproc - Performing the necessary cleanup in the driver remove callback instead of trying to tie it to device releaseFor the most part I agree. I believe the device is still needed for the mailbox client setup. As the call to mbox_request_channel_byname() requires its own device that has the corresponding child node with the corresponding mbox-related properties. With that in mind, is it still ok to keep the device node?Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification! Instead of manually dealing with the device node creation for the individual processors, perhaps it makes more sense to use devm_of_platform_populate() to create them. This is also consistent with the way the TI K3 R5F remoteproc driver does things. Cheers, Michael
I've been working on this today for a way around it and found one that I think works with your initial suggestion,
- in z_rproc, change dev from struct device to struct device*
^ the above is shown the usage thereof below. It is there for the mailbox setup.
- in driver probe:
- add list_head to keep track of each core's z_rproc and for the driver remove clean up
- in each core's probe (zynqmp_r5_probe) dothe following:
rproc_ptr = rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops,
NULL, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_rproc));
if (!rproc_ptr)
return -ENOMEM;
z_rproc = rproc_ptr->priv;
z_rproc->dt_node = node;
z_rproc->rproc = rproc_ptr;
z_rproc->dev = &rproc_ptr->dev;
z_rproc->dev->of_node = node;
where node is the specific R5 core's of_node/ Device tree node.
the above preserves most of the mailbox setup code.
With this, I have already successfully done the following in a v19 patch
- move all the previous driver release code to remove
- able to probe, start/stop r5, driver remove repeatedly
Also, this mimics the TI R5 driver code as each core's rproc has a list_head and they have a structure for the cluster which among other things maintains a linked list of the cores' specific rproc information.
Thanks
Ben
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel