On 3/20/25 00:04, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:26 AM Arnaud POULIQUEN
> <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Rob,
>>
>> On 3/18/25 00:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
>>> Use the newly added of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource() and
>>> of_reserved_mem_region_count() functions to handle "memory-region"
>>> properties.
>>>
>>> The error handling is a bit different in some cases. Often
>>> "memory-region" is optional, so failed lookup is not an error. But then
>>> an error in of_reserved_mem_lookup() is treated as an error. However,
>>> that distinction is not really important. Either the region is available
>>> and usable or it is not. So now, it is just
>>> of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource() which is checked for an error.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> For v6.16
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> index b02b36a3f515..9d2bd8904c49 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> @@ -213,52 +213,46 @@ static int stm32_rproc_prepare(struct rproc *rproc)
>>> {
>>> struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
>>> struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>> - struct of_phandle_iterator it;
>>> struct rproc_mem_entry *mem;
>>> - struct reserved_mem *rmem;
>>> u64 da;
>>> - int index = 0;
>>> + int index = 0, mr = 0;
>>>
>>> /* Register associated reserved memory regions */
>>> - of_phandle_iterator_init(&it, np, "memory-region", NULL, 0);
>>> - while (of_phandle_iterator_next(&it) == 0) {
>>> - rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(it.node);
>>> - if (!rmem) {
>>> - of_node_put(it.node);
>>> - dev_err(dev, "unable to acquire memory-region\n");
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> - }
>>> + while (1) {
>>> + struct resource res;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ret = of_reserved_mem_region_to_resource(np, mr++, &res);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> - if (stm32_rproc_pa_to_da(rproc, rmem->base, &da) < 0) {
>>> - of_node_put(it.node);
>>> - dev_err(dev, "memory region not valid %pa\n",
>>> - &rmem->base);
>>> + if (stm32_rproc_pa_to_da(rproc, res.start, &da) < 0) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "memory region not valid %pR\n", &res);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> /* No need to map vdev buffer */
>>> - if (strcmp(it.node->name, "vdev0buffer")) {
>>> + if (strcmp(res.name, "vdev0buffer")) {
>>
>> I tested your patches
>
> Thank you.
>
>> The update introduces a regression here. The strcmp function never returns 0.
>> Indeed, it.node->name stores the memory region label "vdev0buffer," while
>> res.name stores the memory region name "vdev0buffer@10042000."
>>
>> Several remoteproc drivers may face the same issue as they embed similar code.
>
> Indeed. I confused myself because node 'name' is without the
> unit-address, but this is using the full name. I've replaced the
> strcmp's with strstarts() to address this. I've updated my branch with
> the changes.
This is not enough as the remoteproc core function rproc_find_carveout_by_name()
also compares the memory names. With the following additional fix, it is working
on my STM32MP15-DK board.
@@ -309,11 +309,11 @@ rproc_find_carveout_by_name(struct rproc *rproc, const
char *name, ...)
vsnprintf(_name, sizeof(_name), name, args);
va_end(args);
list_for_each_entry(carveout, &rproc->carveouts, node) {
/* Compare carveout and requested names */
- if (!strcmp(carveout->name, _name)) {
+ if (strstarts(carveout->name, _name)) {
mem = carveout;
break;
}
}
I just wonder if would not be more suitable to address this using the
"memory-region-names" field.
The drawback is that we would break compatibility with legacy boards...
I let Mathieu and Bjorn review and comment
Else with the fix in rproc_find_carveout_by_name(),
-for the stm32_rproc:
reviewed-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
tested-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- for the st_remoteproc
reviewed-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Arnaud
>
> Rob
