Re: [PATCH 7/7] remoteproc: Add custom STE-modem firmware loader.

[Ohad Ben-Cohen]

Hi Sjur,

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM,  <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add custom firmware loader for STE firmware. This plugin adds
> functions for extracting the resource table and loading the
> firmware image into shared memory.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sjur Brændeland <sjur.brandeland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Nice patch!

> +struct rproc_fw_ops rproc_ste_modem_fw_ops = {
> +       .load = ste_load_segments,
> +       .find_rsc_table = ste_find_rsc_table
> +};
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_ste_modem_fw_ops);

After you told me there's no simple & robust way to dynamically probe
the STE binary format, I agree it'd make sense to allow low-lever
drivers to statically impose it.

I'm just still not sure we want to publicly export those fw_ops
symbols throughout the kernel.

Alternatively, we can do something like how i2c algos are determined:
expose a rproc_set_ste_modem_fw() function, which takes an rproc
struct, and then sets the fw_ops to rproc_ste_modem_fw_ops. Then call
it from your driver after rproc_alloc() but before rproc_register().

This way only statically-format-imposing drivers will call those
functions, and all others, who use generic and detectable formats,
will just follow the current registration scheme (so no extra param
needed to rproc_alloc either). In the long term those generic formats
will be dynamically detected, but meanwhile, we can just set ELF as
the default.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/