On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:33:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:

On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

quoted

Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
synchronising with a remote processor.

Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c

@@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
 }
 
 /*
- * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
+ * boot or synchronise with a remote processor.
  */
-static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
+static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)

Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with
fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw"
in this function are valid anymore.

That is right, all firmware related operations in this function are found in
remoteproc_internal.h where the value of rproc->sync_with_mcu is checked before
moving forward. That allows us to avoid introducing a new function similar to
rproc_fw_boot() but without firmware operations or peppering the code with if
statements.

quoted

 {
 	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
 	const char *name = rproc->firmware;

@@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
+	if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc))

Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where
passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"?

It can but I specifically decided to use rproc_needs_syncing() to be consistent
with the rest of the patchset.  That way all we need to do is grep for
rproc_needs_syncing to get all the places where a decision about synchronising
with a remote processor is made.

Regards,
Bjorn

quoted

+		dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
+			 name, fw->size);
 
 	/*
 	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is

@@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
 		}
 	}
 
-	ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
+	ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p);
 
 	release_firmware(firmware_p);
 

-- 
2.20.1