Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 5 May 2020 17:33:41 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Cc:     ohad@wizery.com, loic.pallardy@st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@st.com,
        s-anna@ti.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] remoteproc: Refactor function rproc_fw_boot()
Message-ID: <20200506003341.GD2329931@builder.lan>
References: <20200424200135.28825-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
 <20200424200135.28825-6-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200424200135.28825-6-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

> Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
> that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
> synchronising with a remote processor.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> + * boot or synchronise with a remote processor.
>   */
> -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> +static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)

Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with
fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw"
in this function are valid anymore.

>  {
>  	struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
>  	const char *name = rproc->firmware;
> @@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
> +	if (!rproc_needs_syncing(rproc))

Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where
passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"?

Regards,
Bjorn

> +		dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
> +			 name, fw->size);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> @@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> +	ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p);
>  
>  	release_firmware(firmware_p);
>  
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>