On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:33:41PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>
> > Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
> > that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
> > synchronising with a remote processor.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> > + * boot or synchronise with a remote processor.
> > */
> > -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > +static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>
> Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with
> fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw"
> in this function are valid anymore.
That is right, all firmware related operations in this function are found in
remoteproc_internal.h where the value of rproc->sync_with_mcu is checked before
moving forward. That allows us to avoid introducing a new function similar to
rproc_fw_boot() but without firmware operations or peppering the code with if
statements.
>
> > {
> > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> > const char *name = rproc->firmware;
> > @@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
> > + if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc))
>
> Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where
> passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"?
It can but I specifically decided to use rproc_needs_syncing() to be consistent
with the rest of the patchset. That way all we need to do is grep for
rproc_needs_syncing to get all the places where a decision about synchronising
with a remote processor is made.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
> > + name, fw->size);
> >
> > /*
> > * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> > @@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> > + ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p);
> >
> > release_firmware(firmware_p);
> >
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
