diff mbox series

[v3,02/14] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc_internals()

Message ID 20200424200135.28825-3-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org
State New, archived
Headers show
Series remoteproc: Add support for synchronisaton with rproc | expand

Commit Message

Mathieu Poirier April 24, 2020, 8:01 p.m. UTC
In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
managed by another entity there is no point in allocating memory for
a firmware name since it will never be used.  The same goes for a core
set of operations.

As such introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() to decide if the
allocation of a firmware name and the core operations need to be done.
That way rproc_alloc() can be kept as clean as possible.

Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Bjorn Andersson May 5, 2020, 10:31 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

> In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> managed by another entity there is no point in allocating memory for
> a firmware name since it will never be used.  The same goes for a core
> set of operations.
> 
> As such introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() to decide if the
> allocation of a firmware name and the core operations need to be done.
> That way rproc_alloc() can be kept as clean as possible.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 448262470fc7..1b4756909584 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2076,6 +2076,30 @@ static int rproc_alloc_ops(struct rproc *rproc, const struct rproc_ops *ops)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
> +				 const struct rproc_ops *ops,
> +				 const char *name, const char *firmware)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> +	 * managed by another entity there is no point in carrying a set
> +	 * of operations that will never be used.
> +	 *
> +	 * And since no firmware will ever be loaded, there is no point in
> +	 * allocating memory for it either.

While this is true, I would expect that there are cases where the
remoteproc has ops but no firmware.

How about splitting this decision already now; i.e. moving the if(!ops)
to rproc_alloc_ops() and perhaps only allocate firmware if ops->load is
specified?

Regards,
Bjorn

> +	 */
> +	if (!ops)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	ret = rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	return rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
>   * @dev: the underlying device
> @@ -2105,7 +2129,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>  {
>  	struct rproc *rproc;
>  
> -	if (!dev || !name || !ops)
> +	if (!dev || !name)
>  		return NULL;
>  
>  	rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -2128,10 +2152,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>  	if (!rproc->name)
>  		goto put_device;
>  
> -	if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
> -		goto put_device;
> -
> -	if (rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops))
> +	if (rproc_alloc_internals(rproc, ops, name, firmware))
>  		goto put_device;
>  
>  	/* Assign a unique device index and name */
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>
Mathieu Poirier May 8, 2020, 7:37 p.m. UTC | #2
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:31:58PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> 
> > In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> > managed by another entity there is no point in allocating memory for
> > a firmware name since it will never be used.  The same goes for a core
> > set of operations.
> > 
> > As such introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() to decide if the
> > allocation of a firmware name and the core operations need to be done.
> > That way rproc_alloc() can be kept as clean as possible.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index 448262470fc7..1b4756909584 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -2076,6 +2076,30 @@ static int rproc_alloc_ops(struct rproc *rproc, const struct rproc_ops *ops)
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
> > +				 const struct rproc_ops *ops,
> > +				 const char *name, const char *firmware)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
> > +	 * managed by another entity there is no point in carrying a set
> > +	 * of operations that will never be used.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * And since no firmware will ever be loaded, there is no point in
> > +	 * allocating memory for it either.
> 
> While this is true, I would expect that there are cases where the
> remoteproc has ops but no firmware.
> 

That is a scenario I did not envisioned, but I agree, the remote processor could
be fetching from a private ROM memory and still required handling from the
remoteproc core.

> How about splitting this decision already now; i.e. moving the if(!ops)
> to rproc_alloc_ops() and perhaps only allocate firmware if ops->load is
> specified?
> 

Or just add "if (ops->load)" before calling rproc_alloc_firmware()...  Otherwise
we need to change the calling order of rproc_alloc_firmware() and
rproc_alloc_ops() in order to make sure 'ops' is valid when calling the former.
Either way I'll add a comment with the rationale you have detailed above.


> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
> > +	 */
> > +	if (!ops)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	ret = rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> > +	return rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
> >   * @dev: the underlying device
> > @@ -2105,7 +2129,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> >  {
> >  	struct rproc *rproc;
> >  
> > -	if (!dev || !name || !ops)
> > +	if (!dev || !name)
> >  		return NULL;
> >  
> >  	rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -2128,10 +2152,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> >  	if (!rproc->name)
> >  		goto put_device;
> >  
> > -	if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
> > -		goto put_device;
> > -
> > -	if (rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops))
> > +	if (rproc_alloc_internals(rproc, ops, name, firmware))
> >  		goto put_device;
> >  
> >  	/* Assign a unique device index and name */
> > -- 
> > 2.20.1
> >
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index 448262470fc7..1b4756909584 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -2076,6 +2076,30 @@  static int rproc_alloc_ops(struct rproc *rproc, const struct rproc_ops *ops)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
+				 const struct rproc_ops *ops,
+				 const char *name, const char *firmware)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
+	 * managed by another entity there is no point in carrying a set
+	 * of operations that will never be used.
+	 *
+	 * And since no firmware will ever be loaded, there is no point in
+	 * allocating memory for it either.
+	 */
+	if (!ops)
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	return rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops);
+}
+
 /**
  * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
  * @dev: the underlying device
@@ -2105,7 +2129,7 @@  struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 {
 	struct rproc *rproc;
 
-	if (!dev || !name || !ops)
+	if (!dev || !name)
 		return NULL;
 
 	rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -2128,10 +2152,7 @@  struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 	if (!rproc->name)
 		goto put_device;
 
-	if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
-		goto put_device;
-
-	if (rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops))
+	if (rproc_alloc_internals(rproc, ops, name, firmware))
 		goto put_device;
 
 	/* Assign a unique device index and name */