On Wed 25 Mar 13:46 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
> The current remoteproc core has supported only 32-bit remote
> processors and as such some of the current resource structures
> may not scale well for 64-bit remote processors, and would
> require new versions of resource types. Each resource is currently
> identified by a 32-bit type field. Introduce the concept of version
> for these resource types by overloading this 32-bit type field
> into two 16-bit version and type fields with the existing resources
> behaving as version 0 thereby providing backward compatibility.
>
> The version field is passed as an additional argument to each of
> the handler functions, and all the existing handlers are updated
> accordingly. Each specific handler will be updated on a need basis
> when a new version of the resource type is added.
>
I really would prefer that we add additional types for the new
structures, neither side will be compatible with new versions without
enhancements to their respective implementations anyways.
> An alternate way would be to introduce the new types as completely
> new resource types which would require additional customization of
> the resource handlers based on the 32-bit or 64-bit mode of a remote
> processor, and introduction of an additional mode flag to the rproc
> structure.
>
What would this "mode" indicate? If it's version 0 or 1?
> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 8 +++++++-
> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
[..]
> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> index 77788a4bb94e..526d3cb45e37 100644
> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> @@ -86,7 +86,13 @@ struct resource_table {
> * this header, and it should be parsed according to the resource type.
> */
> struct fw_rsc_hdr {
> - u32 type;
> + union {
> + u32 type;
> + struct {
> + u16 t;
> + u16 v;
> + } st;
I see your "type" is little endian...
Regards,
Bjorn
