[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: introduce version element into resource type field
On 5/21/20 2:21 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 21 May 12:06 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn,
>> On 5/21/20 12:54 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Wed 25 Mar 13:46 PDT 2020, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>> The current remoteproc core has supported only 32-bit remote
>>>> processors and as such some of the current resource structures
>>>> may not scale well for 64-bit remote processors, and would
>>>> require new versions of resource types. Each resource is currently
>>>> identified by a 32-bit type field. Introduce the concept of version
>>>> for these resource types by overloading this 32-bit type field
>>>> into two 16-bit version and type fields with the existing resources
>>>> behaving as version 0 thereby providing backward compatibility.
>>>> The version field is passed as an additional argument to each of
>>>> the handler functions, and all the existing handlers are updated
>>>> accordingly. Each specific handler will be updated on a need basis
>>>> when a new version of the resource type is added.
>>> I really would prefer that we add additional types for the new
>>> structures, neither side will be compatible with new versions without
>>> enhancements to their respective implementations anyways.
>> OK.
>>>> An alternate way would be to introduce the new types as completely
>>>> new resource types which would require additional customization of
>>>> the resource handlers based on the 32-bit or 64-bit mode of a remote
>>>> processor, and introduction of an additional mode flag to the rproc
>>>> structure.
>>> What would this "mode" indicate? If it's version 0 or 1?
>> No, for indicating if the remoteproc is 32-bit or 64-bit and adjust the
>> loading handlers if the resource types need to be segregated accordingly.
> Sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding something. Wouldn't your 64-bit
> remote processor need different firmware from your 32-bit processor
> anyways, if you want to support the wider resource? And you would pack
> your firmware with the appropriate resource types?

Yes, that's correct.

> Afaict the bit width of your remote processor, busses or memory is
> unrelated to the choice of number of bits used to express things in the
> resource table.

I would have to add the new resource type to the loading_handlers right,
so it is a question of whether we want to impose any restrictions in
remoteproc core or not from supporting a certain resource type (eg: I
don't expect RSC_TRACE entries on 64-bit processors).


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-21 21:30    [W:0.060 / U:2.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site