Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] soc: ti: Use remoteproc auto_boot feature | From | Sarangdhar Joshi <> | Date | Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:52:14 -0800 |
| |
On 12/23/2016 03:57 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > On 12/23/2016 11:05 AM, Suman Anna wrote: >> Hi Sarang, >> >>>> >>>> On 12/15/2016 06:03 PM, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote: >>>>> The function wkup_m3_rproc_boot_thread waits for asynchronous >>>>> firmware loading to complete successfully before calling >>>>> rproc_boot(). The same can be achieved by just setting >>>>> rproc->auto_boot flag. Change this. As a result this change >>>>> removes wkup_m3_rproc_boot_thread and moves m3_ipc->sync_complete >>>>> initialization to the wkup_m3_ipc_probe(). >>>>> >>>>> Other than the current usage, the firmware_loading_complete is >>>>> only used in rproc_del() where it's no longer needed. This >>>>> change is in preparation for removing firmware_loading_complete >>>>> completely. >>>> >>>> Based on the comments so far, I am assuming that you are dropping this >>>> series. >>> >>> No, may not be dropping this. Will try to handle it differently in >>> rproc_del() (probably by making use of some state flag). >>>> >>>> In any case, this series did break our PM stack. We definitely don't >>>> want to auto-boot the wkup_m3_rproc device, that responsibility will >>>> need to stay with the wkup_m3_ipc driver. >>> >>> Which scenario did it break? Booting up rproc device before >>> wkup_m3_ipc_probe() causes issues? >> >> Yes, our state machine requires the wkup_m3_ipc driver to control the >> boot of the wkup_m3 remoteproc. The wkup_m3 is not a typical remoteproc, >> it is our PM master and is responsible for putting the host processor >> into suspend and waking it up in system suspend/cpuidle paths. >> The remoteproc infrastructure is only used for load/boot, but the Linux >> PM state machine and communication is all controlled by the wkup_m3_ipc >> driver.
Thanks for explaining. I was missing the fact that the resource table parsing during asynchronous call and the one in rproc_boot() are different.
>> >>> >>> Nevertheless, I think Bjorn's suggestion of just dropping the call to >>> wait_for_completion() and keeping kthread looks good, also because of >>> the fact that rproc_boot() anyways calls request_firmware() and no >>> longer needed to wait on asynchronous loading of firmware. >> >> Yeah, I will have to test this, but looking at current code, this should >> mostly be ok because of the remoteproc core changes w.r.t resource table >> parsing. > > Tested with just the wait_for_completion() removed and it works fine. I > can send a patch for the same if you prefer me to send it.
Thanks for testing it. I have sent the patch.
Regards, Sarang
> > regards > Suman > >> >> regards >> Suman >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
-- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |