Hi Mathieu,
On 9/20/22 22:51, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 02:22:01PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>>> Hi Mathieu,
>>>
>>> On 9/20/22 00:30, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:52:28PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>>>>> 1) Update from V7 [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> - rebase on rproc-next branch [2], commit 729c16326b7f ("remoteproc: imx_dsp_rproc: fix argument 2 of rproc_mem_entry_init")
>>>>> The updates take into account the integration of the
>>>>> commit 1404acbb7f68 ("remoteproc: Fix dma_mem leak after rproc_shutdown")
>>>>> - add Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> according to reviews on V7
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2022/7/13/663
>>>>> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/log/?h=for-next
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Patchset description:
>>>>>
>>>>> This series is a part of the work initiated a long time ago in
>>>>> the series "remoteproc: Decorelate virtio from core"[3]
>>>>>
>>>>> Objective of the work:
>>>>> - Update the remoteproc VirtIO device creation (use platform device)
>>>>> - Allow to declare remoteproc VirtIO device in DT
>>>>> - declare resources associated to a remote proc VirtIO
>>>>> - declare a list of VirtIO supported by the platform.
>>>>> - Prepare the enhancement to more VirtIO devices (e.g I2C, audio, video, ...).
>>>>> For instance be able to declare a I2C device in a virtio-i2C node.
>>>>> - Keep the legacy working!
>>>>> - Try to improve the picture about concerns reported by Christoph Hellwing [4][5]
>>>>>
>>>>> [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/16/1817
>>>>> [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/23/607
>>>>> [5] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/AOKowLclCbOCKxyiJ71WeNyuAAj2q8EUtxrXbyky5E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>
>>>>> In term of device tree this would result in such hierarchy (stm32mp1 example with 2 virtio RPMSG):
>>>>>
>>>>> m4_rproc: m4@10000000 {
>>>>> compatible = "st,stm32mp1-m4";
>>>>> reg = <0x10000000 0x40000>,
>>>>> <0x30000000 0x40000>,
>>>>> <0x38000000 0x10000>;
>>>>> memory-region = <&retram>, <&mcuram>,<&mcuram2>;
>>>>> mboxes = <&ipcc 2>, <&ipcc 3>;
>>>>> mbox-names = "shutdown", "detach";
>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>
>>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>
>>>>> vdev@0 {
>>>>> compatible = "rproc-virtio";
>>>>> reg = <0>;
>>>>> virtio,id = <7>; /* RPMSG */
>>>>> memory-region = <&vdev0vring0>, <&vdev0vring1>, <&vdev0buffer>;
>>>>> mboxes = <&ipcc 0>, <&ipcc 1>;
>>>>> mbox-names = "vq0", "vq1";
>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> vdev@1 {
>>>>> compatible = "rproc-virtio";
>>>>> reg = <1>;
>>>>> virtio,id = <7>; /*RPMSG */
>>>>> memory-region = <&vdev1vring0>, <&vdev1vring1>, <&vdev1buffer>;
>>>>> mboxes = <&ipcc 4>, <&ipcc 5>;
>>>>> mbox-names = "vq0", "vq1";
>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> I was in the process of applying this set when the last patch gave me a
>>>> checkpatch warning about "virtio,rproc" not being documented.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest to introduce a new "virtio-rproc.yaml" based on this work[1], with the
>>>> above in the example sections.
>>>
>>> Yes I saw the warning, but for this first series it is not possible to declare
>>> the associated "rproc-virtio" device in device tree.
>>
>> I understand and agree with your position.
>>
>> I am going ahead and merging this set in order for it to get some exposure in
>> linux-next. That said be on the ready to address potential problems it may
>> cause.
Yes sure!
>
> I am getting conflicts because of the patches previously applied to rproc-next.
> Please resent a series that applies to "7d7f8fe4e399" and I'll move forward with
> the merge.
>
I just sent the V9 to address the rebase.
Thanks,
Arnaud
>>
>>> So at this step it seems not make senses to create the devicetree bindings file.
>>> More than that I don't know how I could justify the properties in bindings if
>>> there is not driver code associated.
>>>
>>> So i would be in favor of not adding the bindings in this series but to define
>>> bindings in the first patch of my "step 2" series; as done on my github:
>>> https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commit/9616d89a4f478cf78865a244efcde108d900f69f
>>>
>>> Please let me know your preference.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Arnaud
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Mathieu
>>>>
>>>> [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc6/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/virtio/virtio-device.yaml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have divided the work in 4 steps to simplify the review, This series implements only
>>>>> the step 1:
>>>>> step 1: Redefine the remoteproc VirtIO device as a platform device
>>>>> - migrate rvdev management in remoteproc virtio.c,
>>>>> - create a remotproc virtio config ( can be disabled for platform that not use VirtIO IPC.
>>>>> step 2: Add possibility to declare and probe a VirtIO sub node
>>>>> - VirtIO bindings declaration,
>>>>> - multi DT VirtIO devices support,
>>>>> - introduction of a remote proc virtio bind device mechanism ,
>>>>> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step2-virtio-in-DT
>>>>> step 3: Add memory declaration in VirtIO subnode
>>>>> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step3-virtio-memories
>>>>> step 4: Add mailbox declaration in VirtIO subnode
>>>>> => https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commits/step4-virtio-mailboxes
>>>>>
>>>>> Arnaud Pouliquen (4):
>>>>> remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_rvdev_add_device function
>>>>> remoteproc: core: Introduce rproc_add_rvdev function
>>>>> remoteproc: Move rproc_vdev management to remoteproc_virtio.c
>>>>> remoteproc: virtio: Create platform device for the remoteproc_virtio
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 154 +++---------------
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 23 ++-
>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c | 189 ++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 6 +-
>>>>> 4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 162 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.24.3
>>>>>
