Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753670Ab1F0WZ1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:25:27 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:51282 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755101Ab1F0WYE (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:24:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:24:01 -0600 From: Grant Likely To: "Grosen, Mark" Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen , davinci-linux-open-source , Arnd Bergmann , Brian Swetland , Rusty Russell , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 1/8] drivers: add generic remoteproc framework Message-ID: <20110627222401.GE20865@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1308640714-17961-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <1308640714-17961-2-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <20110627204958.GB20865@ponder.secretlab.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1680 Lines: 43 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 09:52:30PM +0000, Grosen, Mark wrote: > > From: Grant Likely > > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:50 PM > > Grant, thanks for the feedback. I'll try to answer one of your > questions below and leave the rest for Ohad. > > Mark > > > > +Every remoteproc implementation must provide these handlers: > > > + > > > +struct rproc_ops { > > > + int (*start)(struct rproc *rproc, u64 bootaddr); > > > + int (*stop)(struct rproc *rproc); > > > +}; > > > + > > > +The ->start() handler takes a rproc handle and an optional bootaddr > > argument, > > > +and should power on the device and boot it (using the bootaddr > > argument > > > +if the hardware requires one). > > > > Naive question: Why is bootaddr an argument? Wouldn't rproc drivers > > keep track of the boot address in their driver private data? > > Our AMPs (remote processors) have a variety of boot mechanisms that vary > across the different SoCs (yes, TI likes HW diversity). In some cases, the > boot address is more like an entry point and that comes from the firmware, > so it is not a static attribute of a driver. Correct me if I misunderstood > your question. More to the point, I would expect the boot_address to be a property of the rproc instance because it represents the configuration of the remote processor. It seems odd that the caller of ->start would know better than the rproc driver about the entry point of the processor. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/