On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 06:18, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 18/12/2019 02:38, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 02:55:27PM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote:
> >> From: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> >>
> >> An implementation for the rproc ops .da_to_va() has been added
> >> that provides the address translation between device addresses
> >> to kernel virtual addresses for internal RAMs present on that
> >> particular remote processor device. The implementation provides
> >> the translations based on the addresses parsed and stored during
> >> the probe.
> >>
> >> This ops gets invoked by the exported rproc_da_to_va() function
> >> and allows the remoteproc core's ELF loader to be able to load
> >> program data directly into the internal memories.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> >> index 844703507a74..28f14e24b389 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> >> @@ -232,10 +232,49 @@ static int omap_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/**
> >> + * omap_rproc_da_to_va() - internal memory translation helper
> >> + * @rproc: remote processor to apply the address translation for
> >> + * @da: device address to translate
> >> + * @len: length of the memory buffer
> >> + *
> >> + * Custom function implementing the rproc .da_to_va ops to provide address
> >> + * translation (device address to kernel virtual address) for internal RAMs
> >> + * present in a DSP or IPU device). The translated addresses can be used
> >> + * either by the remoteproc core for loading, or by any rpmsg bus drivers.
> >> + * Returns the translated virtual address in kernel memory space, or NULL
> >> + * in failure.
> >> + */
> >> +static void *omap_rproc_da_to_va(struct rproc *rproc, u64 da, int len)
> >> +{
> >> + struct omap_rproc *oproc = rproc->priv;
> >> + int i;
> >> + u32 offset;
> >> +
> >> + if (len <= 0)
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +
> >> + if (!oproc->num_mems)
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +
> >> + for (i = 0; i < oproc->num_mems; i++) {
> >> + if (da >= oproc->mem[i].dev_addr && da + len <=
> >
> > Shouldn't this be '<' rather than '<=' ?
>
> No, I think <= is correct. You need to consider the initial byte in the
> range also. Consider a simple case where you provide the exact da + len
> corresponding to a specific memory range.
For that specific case you are correct. On the flip side if @da falls
somewhere after @mem[i].dev_addr, there is a possibility to clobber
the first byte of the next range if <= is used.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> >
> >> + oproc->mem[i].dev_addr + oproc->mem[i].size) {
> >
> > One space too many after the '+' .
>
> True, I wonder why checkpatch did not catch this.
>
> >
> >> + offset = da - oproc->mem[i].dev_addr;
> >
> > One space too many after then '-' .
>
> Same, will fix these two.
>
> -Tero
>
> >
> >> + /* __force to make sparse happy with type conversion */
> >> + return (__force void *)(oproc->mem[i].cpu_addr +
> >> + offset);
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static const struct rproc_ops omap_rproc_ops = {
> >> .start = omap_rproc_start,
> >> .stop = omap_rproc_stop,
> >> .kick = omap_rproc_kick,
> >> + .da_to_va = omap_rproc_da_to_va,
> >> };
> >>
> >> static const char * const ipu_mem_names[] = {
> >> --
> >> 2.17.1
> >>
> >> --
>
> --
> Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
