Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:19:37 +0100 | From | neil.armstrong@linaro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] remoteproc: qcom: pas: make region assign more generic |
| |
On 11/12/2023 10:54, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 11.12.2023 10:37, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> 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 > Ack > >> >>> >>>> + 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 > And IMO that's not correct - there's the qcom_scm_vmperm.perm field which > is oneOf r/w/x/rw/rwx and this one is filled with ORed BIT()-ed elements > allowed in qcom_scm_vmperm.vmid (QCOM_SCM_VMID_...)
Ok right I just use the same namings as in rmtfs_mem, fastrpc & ath10k/qmi, but indeed the qcom_scm_assign_mem() 3rd param name is srcvm but doc says "vmid for current set of owners", so yeah it could be named owners.
I'll send a v5 with the rename.
Neil
> > Konrad
| |