Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Add module parameter 'auto_boot'

From: Paul Cercueil
Date: Sat Nov 21 2020 - 13:48:07 EST


Hi Suman,

Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 17:06, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi Paul,

On 11/20/20 4:37 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
Hi Paul,

On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:50:56AM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
Until now the remoteproc core would always default to trying to boot the
remote processor at startup. The various remoteproc drivers could
however override that setting.

Whether or not we want the remote processor to boot, really depends on
the nature of the processor itself - a processor built into a WiFi chip
will need to be booted for the WiFi hardware to be usable, for instance,
but a general-purpose co-processor does not have any predeterminated
function, and as such we cannot assume that the OS will want the
processor to be booted - yet alone that we have a single do-it-all
firmware to load.


If I understand correctly you have various remote processors that use the same firmware
but are serving different purposes - is this correct?

Add a 'auto_boot' module parameter that instructs the remoteproc whether
or not it should auto-boot the remote processor, which will default to
"true" to respect the previous behaviour.


Given that the core can't be a module I wonder if this isn't something that
would be better off in the specific platform driver or the device tree... Other
people might have an opinion as well.

I agree. Even it is a module, all it is setting up is default behavior, and
doesn't buy you much. If you have one or more remoteproc drivers supporting
different instances, and each one wants different behavior, you would have to
customize it in the drivers anyway. ST drivers are customizing this using a DT flag.

Devicetree is supposed to describe the hardware, not how you're supposed to use the hardware...

Given that the individual platform drivers have to be modules, is there any
issue in customizing this in your platform driver?

No, I can patch the platform driver instead, but to me it clearly is a core issue.

Cheers,
-Paul

regards
Suman


Thanks,
Mathieu

Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index dab2c0f5caf0..687b1bfd49db 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -44,6 +44,11 @@

#define HIGH_BITS_MASK 0xFFFFFFFF00000000ULL

+static bool auto_boot = true;
+module_param(auto_boot, bool, 0400);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(auto_boot,
+ "Auto-boot the remote processor [default=true]");
+
static DEFINE_MUTEX(rproc_list_mutex);
static LIST_HEAD(rproc_list);
static struct notifier_block rproc_panic_nb;
@@ -2176,7 +2181,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
return NULL;

rproc->priv = &rproc[1];
- rproc->auto_boot = true;
+ rproc->auto_boot = auto_boot;
rproc->elf_class = ELFCLASSNONE;
rproc->elf_machine = EM_NONE;

--
2.29.2