Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: Introduce rproc_{start,stop}() functions

[Sarangdhar Joshi]

On 05/02/2017 05:02 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue 02 May 13:59 PDT 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote:
>
> > In the context of recovering from crash,
> > rproc_trigger_recovery() does rproc_shutdown() followed
> > by rproc_boot(). The remoteproc resources are cleaned up
> > in rproc_shutdown() and immediately reallocated in
> > rproc_boot() which is an unnecessary overhead.
> >
> > Furthermore, we want the memory regions to be accessible
> > after stopping the remote processor, to be able to extract
> > the memory content for a coredump.
> >
> > The current patch factors out the code in rproc_boot() and
>
> "This patch factors..."
>
> > rproc_shutdown() path and introduces rproc_{start,stop}()
> > in order to avoid resource allocation overhead.
>
> I think the result of the two patches looks good.
>
> But I would prefer if you splice them differently. If I read the patches
> correctly you should be able to introduce rproc_start()/stop() and move
> rproc_boot()/shutdown() over to use these in one patch and then in a
> second patch modify the behavior of the recovery.
>
> That way if one bisects any issues to either one we know if it was the
> refactoring or the modification of the recovery behavior.

Yes, got your point. I will split it into two separate patches.

Regards,
Sarang

> Regards,
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project