On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 07:44:49PM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote: > On 7/18/2023 6:48 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:30:43AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan wrote: > > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > > > On 7/17/2023 8:34 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > Hi Iuliana, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 01:42:51AM +0300, Iuliana Prodan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > From: Iuliana Prodan <iuliana.prodan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > There are cases when we want to test samples that do not > > > > > reply with FW READY message, after fw is loaded and the > > > > > remote processor started. > > > > This seems like a bug to me - where is this FW comes from? > > > The firmware is a generic sample from Zephyr repo: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table > > > > > > There is no bug, this is how the application was written. > > But how did it ever worked before? > > It never worked on this kind of samples (and it was never tested like this). > We used only applications written by us (NXP) with the > requirements/limitations we know we have. > Now, we want to use also generic firmware/samples (from Zephyr) and we face > other kind of limitations. > Right, we can't expect firmware written for a totally different OS to work out of the box on Linux, and vice versa. > > And how does having a module flag to > > characterize each FW implementation that springs up in the field can scale (and > > be maintainable)? > > I believe the FW_READY reply is a limitation introduced by imx_dsp_rproc. > We cannot expect all firmware to give a FW_READY reply. > So, to keep both usecases (internal firmware and generic sample) I added > this flag. > What happens when a third, fourth and fifth protocol variation get introduced? Adding flags just doesn't scale. > > > Rather than modifying a generic sample for i.MX usecase, I prefer doing an > > > "insmod imx_dsp_rproc.ko ignore_dsp_ready=1" just for this sample. > > We already have a "no_mailbox" flag for cases where the FW doesn't need to > > communicate with the main processor. > "no_mailbox" - no IPC between cores; > "ignore_dsp_ready" - we have IPC between cores, but the remote processor > doesn't send a fw_ready reply > These two can be combine, but for "no_mailbox" will do some useless memory > allocations. > > When I added the "no_mailbox" flag, the problem was still FW_READY. > > What happens when some FW implementation > > requires a three-way handshake? How many flags do we spin off? > > > > As I said above this approach is not sustainable. I suggest to either fix the > > FW (it doesn't work with upstream in its present form anyway) or start using the > > config space as described here [1] to dynamically probe the characteristics of > > the FW being loaded. Whichever option you chose, the FW needs to be updated and > > the former is a lot more simple. > I don't think I can modify a generic sample, used on other targets to send a > FW_READY reply. > How will it be handled on other platforms, if their *_rproc are not > expecting this kind of message? > The only way forward is to come up with a standard specification to describe the protocol to use, the same way it is done for virtIO for example. > Thanks, > Iulia > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > > [1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/remoteproc.h#L298 > > > > > Thanks, > > > Iulia > > > > > > > > In these cases, do not wait for a confirmation from the remote processor > > > > > at start. > > > > > > > > > > Added "ignore_dsp_ready" flag while inserting the module to 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> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > This was discovered while testing openamp_rsc_table sample from Zephyr > > > > > repo (https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/tree/main/samples/subsys/ipc/openamp_rsc_table). > > > > > > > > > > We have IPC, but the remote proc doesn't send a FW_READY reply. > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > index b5634507d953..ed89de2f3b98 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > @@ -36,7 +36,13 @@ 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)."); > > > > > +static unsigned int imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready; > > > > > +module_param_named(ignore_dsp_ready, imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready, int, 0644); > > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_dsp_ready, > > > > > + "Ignore remote proc reply after start, default is 0 (off)."); > > > > > + > > > > > #define REMOTE_IS_READY BIT(0) > > > > > +#define REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY BIT(1) > > > > > #define REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES 500 > > > > > /* att flags */ > > > > > @@ -296,6 +302,12 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_ready(struct rproc *rproc) > > > > > if (!priv->rxdb_ch) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * FW_READY reply is optional/ignored, so don't wait for it. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > for (i = 0; i < REMOTE_READY_WAIT_MAX_RETRIES; i++) { > > > > > if (priv->flags & REMOTE_IS_READY) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > @@ -1119,6 +1131,9 @@ static int imx_dsp_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > > else > > > > > imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_init = imx_dsp_rproc_mbox_alloc; > > > > > + if (imx_dsp_rproc_ignore_ready) > > > > > + priv->flags |= REMOTE_IGNORE_READY_REPLY; > > > > > + > > > > > dev_set_drvdata(dev, rproc); > > > > > INIT_WORK(&priv->rproc_work, imx_dsp_rproc_vq_work); > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > >
