Hi Stephen, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The request_firmware timeout is defaulted to 60 seconds but not > necessarily 60 if the user has changed the timeout in sysfs. .. > Why does this need to be a timeout at all? Presumably > request_firmware_nowait() in rproc_register() will timeout and complete > the firmware_loading_complete completion variable. Very good points, thanks for pointing them out! > Would it suffice to > have some new rproc->state like RPROC_UNKNOWN that we set in > rproc_register() before adding it to the list of rprocs? If we find the > firmware then we set it to RPROC_READY or RPROC_REGISTERED? Then we > wait_for_completion() and check the state, failing if it's still in the > unknown state. That makes me think - what if we'll add the rproc to the list only after we find the firmware? This way we avoid this race completely. Speaking of which, I was wondering whether you guys have some free cycles to try remoteproc out. The main reason we kept the get/put interface was to make it easier for you guys to adopt it, but I've been re-thinking lately whether we really want that interface. It's a problematic interface with non-negligible maintenance burden, and the code will be greatly simplified without it. Even if you guys won't be adopting virtio (of any other virtio-over-smd variant) - do you think you'll be able to adopt a similar model with which remoteproc registers, according to the fw capabilities, the relevant devices which then get bound to the relevant higher-level drivers (virtio drivers, smd drivers, etc..) ? That way these devices can point to the rproc context and we don't need any get_by_name interface. Thanks, Ohad. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
