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:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:14:19 -0600
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To:     Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: remoteproc DMA API abuse status
Message-ID: <20210628201419.GC1200359@p14s>
References: <20210623134307.GA29505@lst.de>
 <20210624193514.GA1090275@p14s>
 <011dac94-cfe0-d276-980a-b8ffe1447521@foss.st.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <011dac94-cfe0-d276-980a-b8ffe1447521@foss.st.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 09:27:09AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> Hello Mathieu,
> 
> On 6/24/21 9:35 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > Good day Christoph,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:43:07PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> Hi remoteproc maintainers,
> >>
> >> did you make any progress to get remoteproc out of creating fake
> >> devices that fake their dma ops status and the abuse of
> >> dma_declare_coherent_memory in removeproc_virtio?  I remember we had
> >> a discussion on this a long time ago, and there was an unfinished
> >> patchset to change the memory pool handling.  What happened to all that?
> > 
> > I believe the conversation and patchset you are referring to are pre-dating my
> > time in this subsystem.  To make sure I am looking at the right thing, can you
> > (or anyone else) point me to that discussion and related patches?
> 
> 2 references:
> 
> 1)Previous discussion thread on the topic:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/AOKowLclCbOCKxyiJ71WeNyuAAj2q8EUtxrXbyky5E@cp7-web-042.plabs.ch/
>

I remember that one.  Glad to see there wasn't anything else before that.

> 2) My patchset related to the refactoring of remoteproc virtio which tries to
> address the point by creating a remoteproc platform driver and declaring a
> virtio subnode in the device tree remoteproc node.
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/16/1817
> 

I thought your current work on refactoring the rpmsg_char driver was part of the
early steps on the way to splitting that patchset up...

> No time yet on my side to come back on the patchset :(
> 

I know the feeling.

Thanks for the info,
Mathieu