| Message ID | 20201218173228.2277032-12-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | remoteproc: Add support for detaching a rproc | expand |
On 12/18/20 6:32 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Introduce function __rproc_detach() to perform the same kind of > operation as rproc_stop(), but instead of switching off the > remote processor using rproc->ops->stop(), it uses > rproc->ops->detach(). That way it is possible for the core > to release the resources associated with a remote processor while > the latter is kept operating. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index fc28053c7f89..e665ed4776c3 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -1670,6 +1670,48 @@ static int rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc, bool crashed) > return 0; > } > > +/* > + * __rproc_detach(): Does the opposite of rproc_attach() > + */ > +static int __maybe_unused __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) > +{ > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > + int ret; > + > + /* No need to continue if a detach() operation has not been provided */ > + if (!rproc->ops->detach) > + return -EINVAL; I wonder if this ops should be optional. > + > + /* Stop any subdevices for the remote processor */ > + rproc_stop_subdevices(rproc, false); > + > + /* > + * If the remote processors was started by the core then a cached_table > + * is present and we must follow the same cleanup sequence as we would > + * for a shutdown(). As it is in rproc_stop(), use the cached resource > + * table for the rest of the detach process since ->table_ptr will > + * become invalid as soon as carveouts are released in > + * rproc_resource_cleanup(). > + */ > + if (rproc->cached_table) > + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table; > + > + /* Tell the remote processor the core isn't available anymore */ > + ret = rproc->ops->detach(rproc); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "can't detach from rproc: %d\n", ret); > + rproc_start_subdevices(rproc); Not sure that this would be possible in all cases, without a unprepare and prepare. What about having the same behavior as the rproc_stop failure? Thanks Arnaud. > + return ret; > + } > + > + rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc); > + > + rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED; > + > + dev_info(dev, "detached remote processor %s\n", rproc->name); > + > + return 0; > +} > > /** > * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc >
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:46:58AM +0100, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > > > On 12/18/20 6:32 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > Introduce function __rproc_detach() to perform the same kind of > > operation as rproc_stop(), but instead of switching off the > > remote processor using rproc->ops->stop(), it uses > > rproc->ops->detach(). That way it is possible for the core > > to release the resources associated with a remote processor while > > the latter is kept operating. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> > > Reviewed-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > index fc28053c7f89..e665ed4776c3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > > @@ -1670,6 +1670,48 @@ static int rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc, bool crashed) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +/* > > + * __rproc_detach(): Does the opposite of rproc_attach() > > + */ > > +static int __maybe_unused __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) > > +{ > > + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* No need to continue if a detach() operation has not been provided */ > > + if (!rproc->ops->detach) > > + return -EINVAL; > > I wonder if this ops should be optional. Function rproc_validate() doesn't check for it so it is optional. Returning an error is to indicate to sysfs the operation is not supported if someone tries to do a "detach" when rproc::ops doesn't provide it. > > > + > > + /* Stop any subdevices for the remote processor */ > > + rproc_stop_subdevices(rproc, false); > > + > > + /* > > + * If the remote processors was started by the core then a cached_table > > + * is present and we must follow the same cleanup sequence as we would > > + * for a shutdown(). As it is in rproc_stop(), use the cached resource > > + * table for the rest of the detach process since ->table_ptr will > > + * become invalid as soon as carveouts are released in > > + * rproc_resource_cleanup(). > > + */ > > + if (rproc->cached_table) > > + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table; > > + > > + /* Tell the remote processor the core isn't available anymore */ > > + ret = rproc->ops->detach(rproc); > > + if (ret) { > > + dev_err(dev, "can't detach from rproc: %d\n", ret); > > + rproc_start_subdevices(rproc); > > Not sure that this would be possible in all cases, without a unprepare and > prepare. What about having the same behavior as the rproc_stop failure? I thought rproc_stop()'s failure path was buggy and could be improved but as you say, there might be other ramifications to take into account. I agree that it is more prudent to follow the current behavior from rproc_stop() and leave enhancements for another patchset. > > Thanks > Arnaud. > > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc); > > + > > + rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED; > > + > > + dev_info(dev, "detached remote processor %s\n", rproc->name); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > > > /** > > * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc > >
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index fc28053c7f89..e665ed4776c3 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -1670,6 +1670,48 @@ static int rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc, bool crashed) return 0; } +/* + * __rproc_detach(): Does the opposite of rproc_attach() + */ +static int __maybe_unused __rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) +{ + struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; + int ret; + + /* No need to continue if a detach() operation has not been provided */ + if (!rproc->ops->detach) + return -EINVAL; + + /* Stop any subdevices for the remote processor */ + rproc_stop_subdevices(rproc, false); + + /* + * If the remote processors was started by the core then a cached_table + * is present and we must follow the same cleanup sequence as we would + * for a shutdown(). As it is in rproc_stop(), use the cached resource + * table for the rest of the detach process since ->table_ptr will + * become invalid as soon as carveouts are released in + * rproc_resource_cleanup(). + */ + if (rproc->cached_table) + rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table; + + /* Tell the remote processor the core isn't available anymore */ + ret = rproc->ops->detach(rproc); + if (ret) { + dev_err(dev, "can't detach from rproc: %d\n", ret); + rproc_start_subdevices(rproc); + return ret; + } + + rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc); + + rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED; + + dev_info(dev, "detached remote processor %s\n", rproc->name); + + return 0; +} /** * rproc_trigger_recovery() - recover a remoteproc