From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com (lelv0143.ext.ti.com [198.47.23.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A457613BC0C; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 05:24:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.248 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717478652; cv=none; b=SNO2VcisH4J7e3Ssg+vq+LUZnwFQnCg0rRJuMZjvv9L4Bq/jO4nQk4Tev583l7yjYOxc9c85bwYGP782843UzDi9yvrSEFTOnrDCi0VwIdRMYaudZQbpzMnpoVfgGYyutYjyO4jochkZZUgUzxEaLkrNHUa7w0U1aRSR+i+Ok7o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717478652; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zO5E4nRegnCwQ9vgd83Tdn+Uov+DomFmRsWWPMOdEUw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=gK9VKUyYqtNfzvZ5b3B+1XjFaPdW+POIvLn6w6ySiiMZewKLYpu9DF3j+PzdRIAa7ygwiJZ1jL21Yxti6iyOckC/0AB7o/KeU1sKhkClrJjzeMFMX4cMdTp5IkxKWThZvxmRQyxD3/7/fOM5HtOu4kNNPTDObfsyMkAaf6pELdo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b=M5HEvRDS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.47.23.248 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ti.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="M5HEvRDS" Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4545O4as005554; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:24:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1717478644; bh=kou1v0Jno9D0H4zO+eOmTBrl/hSdSgCo3ASElwkCCTA=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=M5HEvRDSaToeoQIj35cmOqkOvZNRSGgmVpRPKsEQmHTwAdoyaBbeZAOxzPtc5Zjsn UnGzB4IPU71m2WYTDTF8T7rcKFO2L/m50JfhJTRIe19423sK4EBG/1ImMGR3NXOt5K dnnMB2Ms2qPxzIR82I1A6mrRKGz/A1BB1N0oQM28= Received: from DLEE107.ent.ti.com (dlee107.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.37]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 4545O4WG110578 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:24:04 -0500 Received: from DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) by DLEE107.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:24:04 -0500 Received: from lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (10.180.75.250) by DLEE111.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:24:04 -0500 Received: from [10.24.69.66] (uda0510294.dhcp.ti.com [10.24.69.66]) by lelvsmtp5.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 4545O1oT078553; Tue, 4 Jun 2024 00:24:02 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:54:00 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] remoteproc: k3-r5: Acquire mailbox handle during probe To: Andrew Davis , , CC: , , , References: <20240530090737.655054-1-b-padhi@ti.com> <20240530090737.655054-3-b-padhi@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Beleswar Prasad Padhi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Hi Andrew, On 30/05/24 19:46, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 5/30/24 4:07 AM, Beleswar Padhi wrote: >> Acquire the mailbox handle during device probe and do not release handle >> in stop/detach routine or error paths. This removes the redundant >> requests for mbox handle later during rproc start/attach. This also >> allows to defer remoteproc driver's probe if mailbox is not probed yet. >> >> Signed-off-by: Beleswar Padhi >> --- >>   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 66 ++++++++---------------- >>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> index 26362a509ae3..157e8fd57665 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c >> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc >> *rproc) >>       struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client; >>       struct device *dev = kproc->dev; >>       int ret; >> +    long err; >>         client->dev = dev; >>       client->tx_done = NULL; >> @@ -400,10 +401,9 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc >> *rproc) >>         kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0); >>       if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) { >> -        ret = -EBUSY; >> -        dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", >> -            PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox)); >> -        return ret; >> +        err = PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox); >> +        dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", err); >> +        return (err == -EPROBE_DEFER) ? -EPROBE_DEFER : -EBUSY; > > Why turn all other errors into EBUSY? If you just return the error > as-is you > can simply make these 3 lines just: > > return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox), "mbox_request_channel > failed\n"); > >>       } >>         /* >> @@ -552,10 +552,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) >>       u32 boot_addr; >>       int ret; >>   -    ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); >> -    if (ret) >> -        return ret; >> - >>       boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr; >>       /* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */ >>       dev_dbg(dev, "booting R5F core using boot addr = 0x%x\n", >> boot_addr); >> @@ -564,7 +560,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) >>       core = kproc->core; >>       ret = ti_sci_proc_set_config(core->tsp, boot_addr, 0, 0); >>       if (ret) >> -        goto put_mbox; >> +        goto out; > > The label "out" doesn't do anything, just directly `return ret;` here and > in the other cases below. > >>         /* unhalt/run all applicable cores */ >>       if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) { >> @@ -581,12 +577,12 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) >>               dev_err(dev, "%s: can not start core 1 before core 0\n", >>                   __func__); >>               ret = -EPERM; >> -            goto put_mbox; >> +            goto out; >>           } >>             ret = k3_r5_core_run(core); >>           if (ret) >> -            goto put_mbox; >> +            goto out; >>       } >>         return 0; >> @@ -596,8 +592,7 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) >>           if (k3_r5_core_halt(core)) >>               dev_warn(core->dev, "core halt back failed\n"); >>       } >> -put_mbox: >> -    mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); >> +out: >>       return ret; >>   } >>   @@ -658,8 +653,6 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) >>               goto out; >>       } >>   -    mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); >> - >>       return 0; >>     unroll_core_halt: >> @@ -674,42 +667,21 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc) >>   /* >>    * Attach to a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) >>    * >> - * The R5F attach callback only needs to request the mailbox, the >> remote >> - * processor is already booted, so there is no need to issue any TI-SCI >> - * commands to boot the R5F cores in IPC-only mode. This callback is >> invoked >> - * only in IPC-only mode. >> + * The R5F attach callback is a NOP. The remote processor is already >> booted, and >> + * all required resources have been acquired during probe routine, >> so there is >> + * no need to issue any TI-SCI commands to boot the R5F cores in >> IPC-only mode. >> + * This callback is invoked only in IPC-only mode and exists for >> sanity sake. >>    */ >> -static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) >> -{ >> -    struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; >> -    struct device *dev = kproc->dev; >> -    int ret; >> - >> -    ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); >> -    if (ret) >> -        return ret; >> - >> -    dev_info(dev, "R5F core initialized in IPC-only mode\n"); >> -    return 0; >> -} >> +static int k3_r5_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } >>     /* >>    * Detach from a running R5F remote processor (IPC-only mode) >>    * >> - * The R5F detach callback performs the opposite operation to attach >> callback >> - * and only needs to release the mailbox, the R5F cores are not >> stopped and >> - * will be left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is >> invoked >> - * only in IPC-only mode. >> + * The R5F detach callback is a NOP. The R5F cores are not stopped >> and will be >> + * left in booted state in IPC-only mode. This callback is invoked >> only in >> + * IPC-only mode and exists for sanity sake. >>    */ >> -static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) >> -{ >> -    struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; >> -    struct device *dev = kproc->dev; >> - >> -    mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); >> -    dev_info(dev, "R5F core deinitialized in IPC-only mode\n"); >> -    return 0; >> -} >> +static int k3_r5_rproc_detach(struct rproc *rproc) { return 0; } > > Do we still need to disable the mbox channel somehow here to prevent > receiving more messages from the detached core? > >>     /* >>    * This function implements the .get_loaded_rsc_table() callback >> and is used >> @@ -1277,6 +1249,10 @@ static int k3_r5_cluster_rproc_init(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >>           kproc->rproc = rproc; >>           core->rproc = rproc; >>   +        ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); > > Now that we get the channel here in init you'll want to add a matching > mbox_free_channel() call to k3_r5_cluster_rproc_exit(). > > Andrew Thanks for the review! I have sent out v2 addressing these comments: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240604051722.3608750-1-b-padhi@ti.com/ > >> +        if (ret) >> +            return ret; >> + >>           ret = k3_r5_rproc_configure_mode(kproc); >>           if (ret < 0) >>               goto err_config;