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;
From:   Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xilinx.com>
To:     Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
CC:     "Ed T. Mooring" <emooring@xilinx.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>,
        Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mathieu.poirier@linaro.org" <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        "linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
 driver
Thread-Topic: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
 driver
Thread-Index: AQHWmzGLZdXOwIwjxE6bV2X+UlYToKmJZsqAgAGMKFCAACbWgIAAAZmg
Date:   Tue, 6 Oct 2020 21:46:38 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR02MB4407B356B56B9A1D561950B7B50D0@BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20201005160614.3749-1-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>
 <20201005160614.3749-6-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>
 <20201005193449.GA701433@xaphan>
 <BYAPR02MB4407B7F06962DB30ED90761FB50D0@BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <20201006213143.GD701433@xaphan>
In-Reply-To: <20201006213143.GD701433@xaphan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4681fa18-883b-4e78-caa3-08d86a414e25
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Oct 2020 21:46:38.8243
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: kA0TSkQRCLOZVLG9eUatAW8J3hm5mLvXEerwQfcqYk1CqBapdmLvD9NWaAslOLZWVUKn8uAYCcQzEIJ9hnir/w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR02MB4151
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:32 PM
> To: Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xilinx.com>
> Cc: Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xilinx.com>; sunnyliangjy@gmail.com;
> punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>;
> Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
> mathieu.poirier@linaro.org; linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; linux-arm-
> kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5
> remoteproc driver
>=20
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 07:15:49PM +0000, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the review
> >
>=20
> < ... snip ... >
>=20
> > > > +	z_rproc =3D rproc->priv;
> > > > +	z_rproc->dev.release =3D zynqmp_r5_release;
> > >
> > > This is the only field of z_rproc->dev that's actually initialized, a=
nd
> > > this device is not registered with the core at all, so zynqmp_r5_rele=
ase
> > > will never be called.
> > >
> > > Since it doesn't look like there's a need to create this additional
> > > device, I'd suggest:
> > > 	- Dropping the struct device from struct zynqmp_r5_rproc
> > > 	- Performing the necessary cleanup in the driver remove
> > > 	  callback instead of trying to tie it to device release
> >
> > For the most part I agree. I believe the device is still needed for
> > the mailbox client setup.
> >
> > As the call to mbox_request_channel_byname() requires its own device
> > that has the corresponding child node with the corresponding
> > mbox-related properties.
> >
> > With that in mind, is it still ok to keep the device node?
>=20
> Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!
>=20
> Instead of manually dealing with the device node creation for the
> individual processors, perhaps it makes more sense to use
> devm_of_platform_populate() to create them. This is also consistent with
> the way the TI K3 R5F remoteproc driver does things.
>=20
> Cheers,
>  Michael

I've been working on this today for a way around it and found one that I th=
ink works with your initial suggestion,
- in z_rproc, change dev from struct device to struct device*
	^ the above is shown the usage thereof below. It is there for the mailbox =
setup.
- in driver probe:
	- add list_head to keep track of each core's z_rproc and for the driver re=
move clean up
	- in each core's probe (zynqmp_r5_probe) dothe following:


       rproc_ptr =3D rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops,
                                                  NULL, sizeof(struct zynqm=
p_r5_rproc));
        if (!rproc_ptr)
                return -ENOMEM;
        z_rproc =3D rproc_ptr->priv;
        z_rproc->dt_node =3D node;
        z_rproc->rproc =3D rproc_ptr;
        z_rproc->dev =3D &rproc_ptr->dev;
        z_rproc->dev->of_node =3D node;=20
where node is the specific R5 core's of_node/ Device tree node.
=09
the above preserves most of the mailbox setup code.


With this, I have already successfully done the following in a v19 patch
- move all the previous driver release code to remove
- able to probe, start/stop r5, driver remove repeatedly

Also, this mimics the TI R5 driver code as each core's rproc has a list_hea=
d and they have a structure for the cluster which among other things mainta=
ins a linked list of the cores' specific rproc information.

Thanks
Ben