Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 07/19] remoteproc: Add new resource type for resource table spare bytes | From | loic pallardy <> | Date | Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:50:37 +0200 |
| |
On 09/16/2016 07:12 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri 16 Sep 02:02 PDT 2016, loic pallardy wrote: > >> >> >> On 09/15/2016 07:54 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Wed 31 Aug 13:50 PDT 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: >>> >>>> To allow resource appending to an existing resource table, >>>> remoteproc framework should get information about resource >>>> table spare area. With current resource table construction, >>>> remoteproc is not able to identify by itself any free location. >>>> This patch introduces a new resource type named RSC_SPARE which >>>> allows firmware to define room for resource table extension. >>>> Defined spare area will be used by remtoreproc to extend resource >>>> table. >>>> >>> >>> We don't need a dummy type for keeping track of the available room in >>> the resource table in the loaded firmware. All we need to do is to look >>> at the sh_size of the .resource_table section, which actually is what's >>> returned in tablesz. >>> >> This is the size of the .resource_table section. Doesn't means that only >> resource table is stored in. > > I'm not sure I'm getting the details of what you're saying here. Do you > mean that there could be other things in the resource_table section or > just the fact that it being a section doesn't give any information about > how much space this thing will have in loaded form. > >> Today this is the assumption and we force firmware to respect this. >> > > I find it unfortunate that this was put in section and that we just have > to make assumptions on how this projects onto the loaded form. > >>> So the spare size is the difference between tablesz and the end of the >>> last resource and if you need you can pad this when composing the >>> firmware. >>> >> Proposal was to clearly identify the area for extension (whatever >> .resource_table section is done). But if you agree on the fact >> .resource_tabel section constains only resource table and eventualy room for >> extension, I can indeed simply room detection. >> > > Could you describe your use case for programmatically generate a > resource table for a firmware without a .resource_table? I would like to > understand the contract between the driver and the firmware when it > comes to what should go into the resource table.
No I always consider .resource_table section. You answer to my point just above. .resource_table section must contain only the resource table and nothing else. I'm fine with that.
I'll revert RSC_SPARE type.
Regards, Loic > > Regards, > Bjorn >
| |