lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remoteproc: Add module parameter 'auto_boot'
Hi Suman,

Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 17:06, Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com> a écrit :
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 11/20/20 4:37 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:50:56AM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
>>> Until now the remoteproc core would always default to trying to
>>> boot the
>>> remote processor at startup. The various remoteproc drivers could
>>> however override that setting.
>>>
>>> Whether or not we want the remote processor to boot, really
>>> depends on
>>> the nature of the processor itself - a processor built into a WiFi
>>> chip
>>> will need to be booted for the WiFi hardware to be usable, for
>>> instance,
>>> but a general-purpose co-processor does not have any
>>> predeterminated
>>> function, and as such we cannot assume that the OS will want the
>>> processor to be booted - yet alone that we have a single do-it-all
>>> firmware to load.
>>>
>>
>> If I understand correctly you have various remote processors that
>> use the same firmware
>> but are serving different purposes - is this correct?
>>
>>> Add a 'auto_boot' module parameter that instructs the remoteproc
>>> whether
>>> or not it should auto-boot the remote processor, which will
>>> default to
>>> "true" to respect the previous behaviour.
>>>
>>
>> Given that the core can't be a module I wonder if this isn't
>> something that
>> would be better off in the specific platform driver or the device
>> tree... Other
>> people might have an opinion as well.
>
> I agree. Even it is a module, all it is setting up is default
> behavior, and
> doesn't buy you much. If you have one or more remoteproc drivers
> supporting
> different instances, and each one wants different behavior, you would
> have to
> customize it in the drivers anyway. ST drivers are customizing this
> using a DT flag.

Devicetree is supposed to describe the hardware, not how you're
supposed to use the hardware...

> Given that the individual platform drivers have to be modules, is
> there any
> issue in customizing this in your platform driver?

No, I can patch the platform driver instead, but to me it clearly is a
core issue.

Cheers,
-Paul

> regards
> Suman
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mathieu
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> index dab2c0f5caf0..687b1bfd49db 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
>>> @@ -44,6 +44,11 @@
>>>
>>> #define HIGH_BITS_MASK 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL
>>>
>>> +static bool auto_boot = true;
>>> +module_param(auto_boot, bool, 0400);
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(auto_boot,
>>> + "Auto-boot the remote processor [default=true]");
>>> +
>>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(rproc_list_mutex);
>>> static LIST_HEAD(rproc_list);
>>> static struct notifier_block rproc_panic_nb;
>>> @@ -2176,7 +2181,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device
>>> *dev, const char *name,
>>> return NULL;
>>>
>>> rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
>>> - rproc->auto_boot = true;
>>> + rproc->auto_boot = auto_boot;
>>> rproc->elf_class = ELFCLASSNONE;
>>> rproc->elf_machine = EM_NONE;
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.29.2
>>>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-21 19:50    [W:0.065 / U:5.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site