On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:46:38PM +0000, Ben Levinsky wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@xxxxxx> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:32 PM > > To: Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xxxxxxxxxx>; sunnyliangjy@xxxxxxxxx; > > punit1.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Michal Simek <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 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: > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > Thanks for the review > > > > > > > < ... snip ... > > > > > > > > + 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 release > > > > > > For 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. I see how this works, but it feels a bit weird to me to be overriding the remoteproc dev's of_node ptr. Personally I find the devm_of_platform_populate() approach a bit less confusing. But, it's also not my call to make ;). Perhaps a remoteproc maintainer can chime in here. > > > 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
