On 3/20/25 10:21, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>
>
> 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...
Errata:
The drawback is that we would break compatibility with legacy DTs...
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-stm32 mailing list
> Linux-stm32@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://st-md-mailman.stormreply.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-stm32
