On 05/02/2017 05:02 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Tue 02 May 13:59 PDT 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote:
In the context of recovering from crash,
rproc_trigger_recovery() does rproc_shutdown() followed
by rproc_boot(). The remoteproc resources are cleaned up
in rproc_shutdown() and immediately reallocated in
rproc_boot() which is an unnecessary overhead.
Furthermore, we want the memory regions to be accessible
after stopping the remote processor, to be able to extract
the memory content for a coredump.
The current patch factors out the code in rproc_boot() and
"This patch factors..."
rproc_shutdown() path and introduces rproc_{start,stop}()
in order to avoid resource allocation overhead.
I think the result of the two patches looks good.
But I would prefer if you splice them differently. If I read the patches
correctly you should be able to introduce rproc_start()/stop() and move
rproc_boot()/shutdown() over to use these in one patch and then in a
second patch modify the behavior of the recovery.
That way if one bisects any issues to either one we know if it was the
refactoring or the modification of the recovery behavior.
Yes, got your point. I will split it into two separate patches.
Regards,
Sarang
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
