Hi Iuliana,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:41:24AM +0200, Iuliana Prodan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@xxxxxxx>
>
> There are cases when we want to test a simple "hello world"
> application on the DSP and we don't have IPC between the cores.
> Therefore, do not wait for a confirmation from the remote processor
> at start.
>
> Added "no_mailboxes" flag while inserting the module to not initialize
> any mailboxes, and so ignore remote processor reply after start.
> By default, this is off - do not ignore reply from rproc.
>
> Signed-off-by: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since v4
> - s/ignore_dsp_ready/no_mailboxes
> - make imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init() a function pointer which,
> based on the no_mailboxes module parameter, can initialize
> the mailboxes (= imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc()), in case they exists,
> otherwise does nothing (= imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_no_alloc()).
>
> Changes since v3
> - do not instantiate static var to 0, this is done by default
> - do not initialize mailbox if not IPC between the core
>
> Changes since v2
> - s/ignoreready/ignore_dsp_ready
>
> Changes since v1
> - change BIT(31) to BIT(1) for REMOTE_SKIP_WAIT
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> index 95da1cbefacf..85eea85b1655 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,15 @@
>
> #define DSP_RPROC_CLK_MAX 5
>
> +/*
> + * Module parameters
> + */
> +static unsigned int no_mailboxes;
> +module_param_named(no_mailboxes, no_mailboxes, int, 0644);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_mailboxes,
> + "There is no mailbox between cores, so ignore remote proc "
> + "reply after start, default is 0 (off).");
> +
> #define REMOTE_IS_READY BIT(0)
> #define REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 500
>
> @@ -172,6 +181,9 @@ static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_dsp_rproc_att_imx8ulp[] = {
> { 0x30000000, 0x90000000, 0x10000000, 0},
> };
>
> +/* Initialize the mailboxes between cores, if exists */
> +static int (*imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init)(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv);
> +
> /* Reset function for DSP on i.MX8MP */
> static int imx8mp_dsp_reset(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> {
> @@ -492,12 +504,12 @@ static void imx_dsp_rproc_rxdb_callback(struct mbox_client *cl, void *data)
> }
>
> /**
> - * imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init() - request mailbox channels
> + * imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc() - request mailbox channels
> * @priv: private data pointer
> *
> * Request three mailbox channels (tx, rx, rxdb).
> */
> -static int imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> +static int imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> {
> struct device *dev = priv->rproc->dev.parent;
> struct mbox_client *cl;
> @@ -560,6 +572,18 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_no_alloc()
> + *
> + * Empty function for no mailbox between cores
> + *
> + * Always return 0
> + */
> +static int imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_no_alloc(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static void imx_dsp_rproc_free_mbox(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv)
> {
> mbox_free_channel(priv->tx_ch);
> @@ -903,6 +927,11 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> priv->rproc = rproc;
> priv->dsp_dcfg = dsp_dcfg;
>
> + if (no_mailboxes)
> + imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init = imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_no_alloc;
> + else
> + imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init = imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc;
> +
This looks good now. The merge window for the 6.3 cycle opens on Sunday, which
I find too close to start adding new things. As such I will apply your patch to
my local branch and publish it in three weeks when v6.3-rc2 comes out.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc);
>
> INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_dsp_rproc_vq_work);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
