Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:37:27 +0100 | From | Neil Armstrong <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] remoteproc: qcom: pas: make region assign more generic |
| |
On 09/12/2023 19:06, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 8.12.2023 16:04, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> The current memory region assign only supports a single >> memory region. >> >> But new platforms introduces more regions to make the >> memory requirements more flexible for various use cases. >> Those new platforms also shares the memory region between the >> DSP and HLOS. >> >> To handle this, make the region assign more generic in order >> to support more than a single memory region and also permit >> setting the regions permissions as shared. >> >> Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org> >> --- > [...] > >> + for (offset = 0; offset < adsp->region_assign_count; ++offset) { >> + struct reserved_mem *rmem = NULL; >> + >> + node = of_parse_phandle(adsp->dev->of_node, "memory-region", >> + adsp->region_assign_idx + offset); >> + if (node) >> + rmem = of_reserved_mem_lookup(node); >> + of_node_put(node); > Shouldn't this only be called when parse_phandle succeeds? (separate > patch with a fix + cc stable if so?)
It's not a bug, it was added like that because of_node_put() already checks for a NULL pointer: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc5/source/drivers/of/dynamic.c#L45
> >> + if (!rmem) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "unable to resolve shareable memory-region index %d\n", >> + offset); >> + return -EINVAL; >> + } >> >> - perm.vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_MSS_MSA; >> - perm.perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW; >> + if (adsp->region_assign_shared) { >> + perm[0].vmid = QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS; >> + perm[0].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW; >> + perm[1].vmid = adsp->region_assign_vmid; >> + perm[1].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW; >> + perm_size = 2; >> + } else { >> + perm[0].vmid = adsp->region_assign_vmid; >> + perm[0].perm = QCOM_SCM_PERM_RW; >> + perm_size = 1; >> + } >> >> - adsp->region_assign_phys = rmem->base; >> - adsp->region_assign_size = rmem->size; >> - adsp->region_assign_perms = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS); >> + adsp->region_assign_phys[offset] = rmem->base; >> + adsp->region_assign_size[offset] = rmem->size; >> + adsp->region_assign_perms[offset] = BIT(QCOM_SCM_VMID_HLOS); >> >> - ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys, >> - adsp->region_assign_size, >> - &adsp->region_assign_perms, > I think this should be renamed to region_assign_owner(s)
Why ? this bitfield is names "perms" everywhere qcom_scm_assign_mem is used
> >> - &perm, 1); >> - if (ret < 0) { >> - dev_err(adsp->dev, "assign memory failed\n"); >> - return ret; >> + ret = qcom_scm_assign_mem(adsp->region_assign_phys[offset], >> + adsp->region_assign_size[offset], >> + &adsp->region_assign_perms[offset], >> + perm, perm_size); >> + if (ret < 0) { >> + dev_err(adsp->dev, "assign memory %d failed\n", offset); >> + return ret; >> + } >> } >> >> return 0; >> @@ -629,20 +653,23 @@ static int adsp_assign_memory_region(struct qcom_adsp *adsp) >> static void adsp_unassign_memory_region(struct qcom_adsp *adsp) >> { >> struct qcom_scm_vmperm perm; >> + int offset; >> int ret; >> >> - if (!adsp->region_assign_idx) >> + if (!adsp->region_assign_idx || adsp->region_assign_shared) > So when it's *shared*, we don't want to un-assign it?
Exact, when shared the region stays shared, as downstream does, un-assigning will fail in this case.
> > Konrad
Thanks, Neil
| |