RE: Ongoing remoteproc discussions

[Loic PALLARDY]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Andersson [mailto:bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:13 PM
> To: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lee
> Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sarangdhar Joshi <spjoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>; Eric FINCO <eric.finco@xxxxxx>;
> Russell Wayman <russell.wayman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Matthew Locke
> <matthew.locke@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@xxxxxxxxxx>; Bill
> Fletcher <bill.fletcher@xxxxxxxxxx>; Puja Gupta <pujag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Ongoing remoteproc discussions
> 
> On Wed 10 Aug 17:19 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> 
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 07/18/2016 06:10 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> [..]
> > > == Auto-boot or always-on:
> > > There are cases where we want to achieve the current auto-boot
> > > mechanism without rpmsg and there are cases where we don't want to
> > > auto-boot a remoteproc just because its resource table contains
> > > rpmsg entries. So we need to decouple this logic from the vdev. I suggest
> that:
> >
> > I am trying to understand the usecase where one doesn't want to
> > auto-boot with rpmsg entries, did you come across such an usecase?
> >
> 
> This is a request that comes from Loic (ST). I'm unaware of the details, but I
> can think of scenarios where rpmsg channels serves as auxiliary functionality
> to the main purpose of a co-processor (e.g. debug functionality).
> 
Hi Bjorn, Suman,

In ST, in general we have a driver on the top of remoteproc to control rproc activities (set fw name, boot, shutdown...).
The request was to have the same behavior between rproc with and without rpmsg.
With rpmsg, a rproc is automatically boot and so if on the top driver wants to apply same boot sequence (rproc_set_fw_name, rproc_boot, rproc_shutdown), rproc_shutdown will never happened as rproc_boot called twice (one by on the top driver, one by "rpmsg").

So the proposal was to have autoboot capability linked to the rproc itself, not to the communication link.

Regards,
Loic
[...]
> 
> Thanks for your input!
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn