On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 08:22, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 04:15:47PM -0700, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> > From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Multi-cluster remoteproc designs typically have the following DT
> > declaration:
> >
> > remoteproc_cluster {
> > compatible = "soc,remoteproc-cluster";
> >
> > core0: core0 {
> > compatible = "soc,remoteproc-core"
> > memory-region;
> > sram;
> > };
> >
> > core1: core1 {
> > compatible = "soc,remoteproc-core"
> > memory-region;
> > sram;
> > }
> > };
> >
> > A driver exists for the cluster rather than the individual cores
> > themselves so that operation mode and HW specific configurations
> > applicable to the cluster can be made.
> >
> > Because the driver exists at the cluster level and not the individual
> > core level, function rproc_get_by_phandle() fails to return the
> > remoteproc associated with the phandled it is called for.
> >
> > This patch enhances rproc_get_by_phandle() by looking for the cluster's
> > driver when the driver for the immediate remoteproc's parent is not
> > found.
> >
> > Reported-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 695cce218e8c..3a8191803885 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > #include <linux/idr.h>
> > #include <linux/elf.h>
> > #include <linux/crc32.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> > #include <linux/virtio_ids.h>
> > #include <linux/virtio_ring.h>
> > @@ -2111,7 +2112,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_detach);
> > #ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
> > {
> > + struct platform_device *cluster_pdev;
> > struct rproc *rproc = NULL, *r;
> > + struct device_driver *driver;
> > struct device_node *np;
> >
> > np = of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle);
> > @@ -2122,7 +2125,30 @@ struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
> > list_for_each_entry_rcu(r, &rproc_list, node) {
> > if (r->dev.parent && device_match_of_node(r->dev.parent, np)) {
> > /* prevent underlying implementation from being removed */
> > - if (!try_module_get(r->dev.parent->driver->owner)) {
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the remoteproc's parent has a driver, the
> > + * remoteproc is not part of a cluster and we can use
> > + * that driver.
> > + */
> > + driver = r->dev.parent->driver;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the remoteproc's parent does not have a driver,
> > + * look for the driver associated with the cluster.
> > + */
> > + if (!driver) {
> > + cluster_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np->parent);
>
> Both the Ti and Xilinx drivers are using of_platform_populate(), so
> their r->dev.parent should have a parent reference to the cluster
> device.
>
So you are proposing to get the cluster's driver using something like
r->dev.parent->parent->driver?
I will have to verify the parent/child relationship is set up properly
through the of_platform_populate(). If it is, following the pointer
trail is an equally valid approach and I will respin this set.
> Unless I'm reading the code wrong, I think we should follow that
> pointer, rather than taking the detour in the DeviceTree data.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > + if (!cluster_pdev) {
> > + dev_err(&r->dev, "can't get parent\n");
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + driver = cluster_pdev->dev.driver;
> > + put_device(&cluster_pdev->dev);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!try_module_get(driver->owner)) {
> > dev_err(&r->dev, "can't get owner\n");
> > break;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
