[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: [RFC 1/8] drivers: add generic remoteproc framework
> From: Grant Likely
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:50 PM

Grant, thanks for the feedback. I'll try to answer one of your
questions below and leave the rest for Ohad.


> > +Every remoteproc implementation must provide these handlers:
> > +
> > +struct rproc_ops {
> > + int (*start)(struct rproc *rproc, u64 bootaddr);
> > + int (*stop)(struct rproc *rproc);
> > +};
> > +
> > +The ->start() handler takes a rproc handle and an optional bootaddr
> argument,
> > +and should power on the device and boot it (using the bootaddr
> argument
> > +if the hardware requires one).
> Naive question: Why is bootaddr an argument? Wouldn't rproc drivers
> keep track of the boot address in their driver private data?

Our AMPs (remote processors) have a variety of boot mechanisms that vary
across the different SoCs (yes, TI likes HW diversity). In some cases, the
boot address is more like an entry point and that comes from the firmware,
so it is not a static attribute of a driver. Correct me if I misunderstood
your question.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-27 23:59    [W:0.110 / U:6.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site