On 4/22/21 6:36 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>> On 4/21/21 7:40 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> Good day Arnaud,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 03:44:56PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>>>> A rpmsg char device allows to probe the endpoint device on a remote name
>>>> service announcement.
>>>>
>>>> With this patch the /dev/rpmsgX interface is created either by a user
>>>> application or by the remote firmware.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> update from V1:
>>>> - add missing unregister_rpmsg_driver call on module exit.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
>>>> index a64249d83172..4606787b7011 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
>>>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
>>>> #include "rpmsg_char.h"
>>>> #include "rpmsg_internal.h"
>>>>
>>>> +#define RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME "rpmsg-raw"
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why not simply call it rpmsg-char?
>>
>> I would avoid to link the rpmsg name service to the Linux Kernel device.
>
> To me that's exactly what we want to do... Am I missing something?
A discussion started about a service layer in the OpenAMP library.
"rpmsg-char" doesn't really make sense in OpenAMP, especially for
OpenAMP<->openAMP communication.
That's why I think a generic name would be more suitable.
Regards,
Arnaud
>
>>
>>>
>>>> static dev_t rpmsg_major;
>>>>
>>>> static DEFINE_IDA(rpmsg_ept_ida);
>>>> @@ -403,13 +405,67 @@ int rpmsg_chrdev_create_eptdev(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, struct device *parent
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rpmsg_chrdev_create_eptdev);
>>>>
>>>> +static int rpmsg_chrdev_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rpmsg_channel_info chinfo;
>>>> + struct rpmsg_eptdev *eptdev;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!rpdev->ept)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + memcpy(chinfo.name, RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME, sizeof(RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME));
>>>> + chinfo.src = rpdev->src;
>>>> + chinfo.dst = rpdev->dst;
>>>> +
>>>> + eptdev = __rpmsg_chrdev_create_eptdev(rpdev, &rpdev->dev, chinfo, NULL);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(eptdev))
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(eptdev);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Set the private field of the default endpoint to retrieve context on callback. */
>>>> + rpdev->ept->priv = eptdev;
>>>
>>> This is already done in rpmsg_create_ept() when rpmsg_eptdev_open() is called.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void rpmsg_chrdev_remove(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = device_for_each_child(&rpdev->dev, NULL, rpmsg_chrdev_destroy_eptdev);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_warn(&rpdev->dev, "failed to destroy endpoints: %d\n", ret);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct rpmsg_device_id rpmsg_chrdev_id_table[] = {
>>>> + { .name = RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME },
>>>> + { },
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct rpmsg_driver rpmsg_chrdev_driver = {
>>>> + .probe = rpmsg_chrdev_probe,
>>>> + .remove = rpmsg_chrdev_remove,
>>>> + .id_table = rpmsg_chrdev_id_table,
>>>> + .callback = rpmsg_ept_cb,
>>>
>>> Not sure why we need a callback associated to this driver when
>>> rpmsg_eptdev_open() already creates and rpmsg_endpoint. To me the only thing
>>> having a callback provides is the association between the rpmsg_device and the
>>> rpmsg_endpoint[1] that happens in rpmsg_dev_probe(). The QC folks already do
>>> this association in their platform code[2]. Since this is not done in
>>> __rpmsg_create_ept() a check for rpdev->ept == NULL could be done in
>>> rpmsg_eptdev_open() and do the assignment there.
>>>
>>> [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.12-rc6/source/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c#L513
>>> [2]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.12-rc6/source/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_native.c#L1623
>>>
>>
>> That's a good point! When I started the redesign, I faced some issues with the
>> approach you propose. But as I can not remember the reason and because the code
>> has evolved, i need to re-think about this.
>>
>
> Glad to see we're on the same page. I stared at this code for a very long time,
> thinking there was some kind of bigger picture I wasn't getting.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>
>>>> + .drv = {
>>>> + .name = "rpmsg_chrdev",
>>>> + },
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> static int rpmsg_chrdev_init(void)
>>>> {
>>>> int ret;
>>>>
>>>> ret = alloc_chrdev_region(&rpmsg_major, 0, RPMSG_DEV_MAX, "rpmsg_char");
>>>> - if (ret < 0)
>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>> pr_err("rpmsg: failed to allocate char dev region\n");
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = register_rpmsg_driver(&rpmsg_chrdev_driver);
>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("rpmsg: failed to register rpmsg raw driver\n");
>>>> + unregister_chrdev_region(rpmsg_major, RPMSG_DEV_MAX);
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -417,6 +473,7 @@ postcore_initcall(rpmsg_chrdev_init);
>>>>
>>>> static void rpmsg_chrdev_exit(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + unregister_rpmsg_driver(&rpmsg_chrdev_driver);
>>>> unregister_chrdev_region(rpmsg_major, RPMSG_DEV_MAX);
>>>> }
>>>> module_exit(rpmsg_chrdev_exit);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>
