On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 01:23:59PM +0530, Beleswar Prasad Padhi wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > On 14-08-2024 21:22, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Hi Beleswar, On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01: 11: 26PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi > > wrote: > Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do not > > release handle > in stop/detach routine or error paths. This removes the > > redundant > requests for > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > > Report Suspicious > > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK!vldnVV7DH2eSIoaksHjpMPogloWUPfAcp2-dEVbMoE1YA3kGFXdJXGAJUKJm$> > > > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > Hi Beleswar, > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 01:11:26PM +0530, Beleswar Padhi wrote: > > > Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do not release handle > > > in stop/detach routine or error paths. This removes the redundant > > > requests for mbox handle later during rproc start/attach. This also > > > allows to defer remoteproc driver's probe if mailbox is not probed yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi <b-padhi@xxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 78 +++++++++--------------- > > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > > index 57067308b3c0..8a63a9360c0f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c > > > @@ -194,6 +194,10 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback(struct mbox_client *client, void *data) > > > const char *name = kproc->rproc->name; > > > u32 msg = omap_mbox_message(data); > > > > + /* Do not forward message from a detached core */ > > > + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) > > > + return; > > > + > > > dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg); > > > > switch (msg) { > > > @@ -229,6 +233,10 @@ static void k3_r5_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid) > > > mbox_msg_t msg = (mbox_msg_t)vqid; > > > int ret; > > > > + /* Do not forward message to a detached core */ > > > + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED) > > > + return; > > > + > > > /* send the index of the triggered virtqueue in the mailbox payload */ > > > ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)msg); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > @@ -399,12 +407,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc) > > > client->knows_txdone = false; > > > > kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0); > > > - if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) { > > > - ret = -EBUSY; > > > - dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", > > > - PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox)); > > > - return ret; > > > - } > > > + if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox), > > > + "mbox_request_channel failed\n"); > > > > /* > > > * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now; > > > @@ -552,10 +557,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > > u32 boot_addr; > > > int ret; > > > > - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return ret; > > > - > > > boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr; > > > /* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */ > > > dev_dbg(dev, "booting R5F core using boot addr = 0x%x\n", boot_addr); > > > @@ -564,7 +565,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > > core = kproc->core; > > > ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(core->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0); > > > if (ret) > > > - goto put_mbox; > > > + return ret; > > > > /* unhalt/run all applicable cores */ > > > if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) { > > > @@ -580,13 +581,12 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > > if (core != core0 && core0->rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE) { > > > dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n", > > > __func__); > > > - ret = -EPERM; > > > - goto put_mbox; > > > + return -EPERM; > > > } > > > > ret = k3_r5_core_run(core); > > > if (ret) > > > - goto put_mbox; > > > + return ret; > > > } > > > > return 0; > > > @@ -596,8 +596,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) > > > if (k3_r5_core_halt(core)) > > > dev_warn(core->dev, "core halt back failed\n"); > > > } > > > -put_mbox: > > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > > return ret; > > > } > > > > @@ -658,8 +656,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc > > *rproc) > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > > - > > > return 0; > > > > unroll_core_halt: > > > @@ -674,42 +670,22 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) > > > /* > > > * Attach to a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) > > > * > > > - * The R5F attach callback only needs to request the mailbox, the remote > > > - * processor is already booted, so there is no need to issue any TI-SCI > > > - * commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked > > > - * only in IPC-only mode. > > > + * The R5F attach callback is a NOP. The remote processor is already booted, and > > > + * all required resources have been acquired during probe routine, so there is > > > + * no need to issue any TI-SCI commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. > > > + * This callback is invoked only in IPC-only mode and exists because > > > + * rproc_validate() checks for its existence. > > > > Excellent documentation. > > > Thanks! > > > > > > */ > > > -static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) > > > -{ > > > - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > > > - struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > > > - int ret; > > > - > > > - ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return ret; > > > - > > > - dev_info(dev, "R5F core initialized in IPC-only mode\n"); > > > - return 0; > > > -} > > > +static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } > > > > /* > > > * Detach from a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) > > > * > > > - * The R5F detach callback performs the opposite operation to attach callback > > > - * and only needs to release the mailbox, the R5F cores are not stopped and > > > - * will be left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked > > > - * only in IPC-only mode. > > > + * The R5F detach callback is a NOP. The R5F cores are not stopped and will be > > > + * left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked only in > > > + * IPC-only mode and exists for sanity sake. > > > > I would add the part about detach() being a NOP to attach() above... > > > > > */ > > > -static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) > > > -{ > > > - struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; > > > - struct device *dev = kproc->dev; > > > - > > > - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > > - dev_info(dev, "R5F core deinitialized in IPC-only mode\n"); > > > - return 0; > > > -} > > > +static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } > > > > ... and just remove this. > > > Thanks for the comments. But dropping k3_r5_rproc_detach() would mean we > would get -EINVAL[1] while trying to detach the core from sysfs[0]. Is it > expected? > You are correct. I have applied your patch. > [0]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_sysfs.c#n202 > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c#n1752 > > > > > Otherwise this patch looks good. > > > > > > /* > > > * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback and is used > > > @@ -1278,6 +1254,10 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > kproc->rproc = rproc; > > > core->rproc = rproc; > > > > + ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + > > > ret = k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(kproc); > > > if (ret < 0) > > > goto out; > > > @@ -1392,6 +1372,8 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data) > > > } > > > } > > > > + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); > > > + > > > rproc_del(rproc); > > > > k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc); > > > -- > 2.34.1 > > >
