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 <[email protected]>
---
drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 74 +++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
index 26362a509ae3c..7e02e3472ce25 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 to a detached core */
+ if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
+ return;
+
dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
switch (msg) {
@@ -399,12 +403,9 @@ 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 +553,6 @@ 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 +561,7 @@ 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 +577,12 @@ 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 +592,6 @@ 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 +652,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
goto out;
}
- mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
-
return 0;
unroll_core_halt:
@@ -674,42 +666,22 @@ 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.
*/
-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.
*/
-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; }
/*
* This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback and is used
@@ -1277,6 +1249,10 @@ 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 err_config;
@@ -1393,6 +1369,8 @@ 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
On 6/4/24 12:17 AM, 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 74 +++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 26362a509ae3c..7e02e3472ce25 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 to a detached core */
s/to/from
This is the receive side from the core.
> + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
> + return;
> +
Do we need a similar check when sending messages to the core in
k3_r5_rproc_kick()? No one should be sending anything as they
all should have detached at this point, but something to double
check on.
> dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
>
> switch (msg) {
> @@ -399,12 +403,9 @@ 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");
This is good cleanup, but maybe something for its own patch.
>
> /*
> * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
> @@ -552,10 +553,6 @@ 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 +561,7 @@ 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 +577,12 @@ 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 +592,6 @@ 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 +652,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> goto out;
> }
>
> - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
> -
> return 0;
>
> unroll_core_halt:
> @@ -674,42 +666,22 @@ 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.
> */
> -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; }
I wonder if rproc_validate() should be updated to allow not
having an attach/detach for cases like this. Then we could drop
this function completely.
Andrew
>
> /*
> * 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.
> */
> -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; }
>
> /*
> * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback and is used
> @@ -1277,6 +1249,10 @@ 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 err_config;
> @@ -1393,6 +1369,8 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data)
> }
> }
>
> + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
> +
> rproc_del(rproc);
>
> k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);
Hi Andrew,
On 04/06/24 22:40, Andrew Davis wrote:
> On 6/4/24 12:17 AM, 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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 74 +++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
>> index 26362a509ae3c..7e02e3472ce25 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 to a detached core */
>
> s/to/from
>
> This is the receive side from the core.
>
>> + if (kproc->rproc->state == RPROC_DETACHED)
>> + return;
>> +
>
> Do we need a similar check when sending messages to the core in
> k3_r5_rproc_kick()? No one should be sending anything as they
> all should have detached at this point, but something to double
> check on.
>
>> dev_dbg(dev, "mbox msg: 0x%x\n", msg);
>> switch (msg) {
>> @@ -399,12 +403,9 @@ 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");
>
> This is good cleanup, but maybe something for its own patch.
>
>> /*
>> * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for
>> now;
>> @@ -552,10 +553,6 @@ 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 +561,7 @@ 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 +577,12 @@ 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 +592,6 @@ 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 +652,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> goto out;
>> }
>> - mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> -
>> return 0;
>> unroll_core_halt:
>> @@ -674,42 +666,22 @@ 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.
>> */
>> -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; }
>
> I wonder if rproc_validate() should be updated to allow not
> having an attach/detach for cases like this. Then we could drop
> this function completely.
Not sure if we can update rproc_validate() for this usecase. Ideally, it
checks for an attach function if the core is detached, which should be
correct, right?
Will address all other comments in the next revision!
>
> Andrew
>
>> /*
>> * 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.
>> */
>> -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; }
>> /*
>> * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback
>> and is used
>> @@ -1277,6 +1249,10 @@ 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 err_config;
>> @@ -1393,6 +1369,8 @@ static void k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(void *data)
>> }
>> }
>> + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
>> +
>> rproc_del(rproc);
>> k3_r5_reserved_mem_exit(kproc);