On 04/05/2023 14:57, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > > On 5/4/2023 6:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 04/05/2023 14:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/4/2023 5:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 04/05/2023 13:58, Mukesh Ojha wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/4/2023 5:08 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 03/05/2023 19:02, Mukesh Ojha wrote: >>>>>>> Move minidump specific data types and macros to a separate internal >>>>>>> header(qcom_minidump.h) so that it can be shared among different >>>>>>> Qualcomm drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, this is not internal header. You moved it to global header. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no reason driver internals should be exposed to other unrelated >>>>>> subsystems. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no change in functional behavior after this. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is. You made all these internal symbols available to others. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This comes without justification why other drivers needs to access >>>>>> private and internal data. It does not look correct design. NAK. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for catching outdated commit text, will fix the commit with >>>>> more descriptive reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> It has to be global so that co-processor minidump and apss minidump can >>>>> share data structure and they are lying in different directory. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then you should not share all the internals of memory layout but only >>>> few pieces necessary to talk with minidump driver. The minidump driver >>>> should organize everything how it wants. >>> >>> These are core data structure which is shared with boot firmware and the >>> one's are moved here all are required by minidump driver . >> >> I am not sure if I understand correctly. If they are all required by >> minidump driver, then this must not be in include, but stay with >> minidump. Remoteproc then should not touch it. >> >> I don't understand why internals of minidump should be important for >> remoteproc. If they are, means you broken encapsulation. >> >>> >>> If you follow here[1], i raised by concern to make this particular one's >>> as private and later to avoid confusion went with single header. >>> But if others agree, I will keep the one that get shared with minidump >>> as separate one or if relative path of headers are allowed that can make >>> it private between these drivers(which i don't think, will be allowed or >>> recommended). >> >> Let's be specific: why MD_REGION_VALID must be available for remoteproc >> or any other driver after introducing qcom minidump driver? > > Forget about this driver for a moment. > > I am not sure how much you know about existing qcom_minidump() > implementation and why is it there in first place in remoteproc > code in driver/remoteproc/qcom_common.c > > The idea is, remoteproc co-processor like adsp/cdsp etc. may have their > static predefined region (segments) to be collected on their crash which > is what exactly existing qcom_minidump() is doing. > > Now, after this minidump series, APSS (linux) will have it's > own of collecting linux client region independent of whether > remoteproc minidump collection. > > I think, are you hinting to move all minidump related code from > remoteproc to qcom_minidump driver, is this what are you trying > to say ? Close, not all but the ones not necessary to identify the regions/storage/layout. If some variable about this region/storage/layout is the same everywhere, it means it's basically a property of qcom minidump and you have just exposed it to consumers breaking encapsulation. Best regards, Krzysztof
