From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9680EC2D0DB for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8202082E for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="VB4nECyO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728378AbgA3SLo (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:11:44 -0500 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:40990 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727729AbgA3SLo (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:11:44 -0500 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00UIBhI8005214; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:43 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1580407903; bh=h+G3LYU16aiLuWdXeyIlXaOLzpHdez77njrJFeFbZgc=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=VB4nECyOLcYrKZ2Lwg0Fj+3Ce9RxR92ut+kqcss4ZGQole0jHQD4F83kbFT3VsQ6e Sl6M5vgI7GTndGQmKueITUkH87KvfPbkxq3Yia2UmyDKelAwLP3vAd8ONUdLp5F2fY M6sxxx7TfHtNKY9M3WIz+MbuVAq7shX/5O2ABcwk= Received: from DLEE115.ent.ti.com (dlee115.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.26]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 00UIBhX6046863 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:43 -0600 Received: from DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) by DLEE115.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:42 -0600 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1847.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:43 -0600 Received: from [10.250.70.160] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00UIBfRd064578; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:11:42 -0600 Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 06/14] remoteproc/omap: Initialize and assign reserved memory node To: Tero Kristo , , , CC: , , , References: <20200116135332.7819-1-t-kristo@ti.com> <20200116135332.7819-7-t-kristo@ti.com> From: "Andrew F. Davis" Message-ID: <249c293c-6a23-165f-1df5-4859ee47658a@ti.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:11:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200116135332.7819-7-t-kristo@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/16/20 8:53 AM, Tero Kristo wrote: > From: Suman Anna > > The reserved memory nodes are not assigned to platform devices by > default in the driver core to avoid the lookup for every platform > device and incur a penalty as the real users are expected to be > only a few devices. > > OMAP remoteproc devices fall into the above category and the OMAP > remoteproc driver _requires_ specific CMA pools to be assigned > for each device at the moment to align on the location of the > vrings and vring buffers in the RTOS-side firmware images. So, Same comment as before, this is a firmware issue for only some firmwares that do not handle being assigned vring locations correctly and instead hard-code them. This is not a requirement of the remote processor itself and so it should not fail to probe if a specific memory carveout isn't given. Andrew > use the of_reserved_mem_device_init/release() API appropriately > to assign the corresponding reserved memory region to the OMAP > remoteproc device. Note that only one region per device is > allowed by the framework. > > Signed-off-by: Suman Anna > Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson > --- > v5: no changes > > drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c | 12 +++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c > index 0846839b2c97..194303b860b2 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -480,14 +481,22 @@ static int omap_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (ret) > goto free_rproc; > > + ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init(&pdev->dev); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "device does not have specific CMA pool\n"); > + goto free_rproc; > + } > + > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rproc); > > ret = rproc_add(rproc); > if (ret) > - goto free_rproc; > + goto release_mem; > > return 0; > > +release_mem: > + of_reserved_mem_device_release(&pdev->dev); > free_rproc: > rproc_free(rproc); > return ret; > @@ -499,6 +508,7 @@ static int omap_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > rproc_del(rproc); > rproc_free(rproc); > + of_reserved_mem_device_release(&pdev->dev); > > return 0; > } >