Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel

From: Mathieu Poirier
Date: Wed Feb 19 2020 - 15:56:42 EST

Next message: Mark Brown: "Applied "ASoC: dt-bindings: stm32: convert i2s to json-schema" to the asoc tree"
Previous message: Ansuel Smith: "[PATCH] cpufreq: qcom: Add support for krait based socs"
In reply to: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel"
Next in thread: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hey Arnaud,

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 10:31, Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu, Bjorn,
>
> On 2/17/20 7:40 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 09:33, Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Mathieu,
> >>
> >> On 2/13/20 9:08 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> Good day,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 06:42:03PM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> >>>> From: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Remote processor could boot independently or be loaded/started before
> >>>> Linux kernel by bootloader or any firmware.
> >>>> This patch introduces a new property in rproc core, named skip_fw_load,
> >>>> to be able to allocate resources and sub-devices like vdev and to
> >>>> synchronize with current state without loading firmware from file system.
> >>>> It is platform driver responsibility to implement the right firmware
> >>>> load ops according to HW specificities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
> >>>> Acked-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >>>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 +
> >>>> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>> index 097f33e4f1f3..876b5420a32b 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> >>>> @@ -1358,8 +1358,19 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -/*
> >>>> - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> >>>> +/**
> >>>> + * rproc_fw_boot() - boot specified remote processor according to specified
> >>>> + * firmware
> >>>> + * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
> >>>> + * @fw: pointer on firmware to handle
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Handle resources defined in resource table, load firmware and
> >>>> + * start remote processor.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * If firmware pointer fw is NULL, firmware is not handled by remoteproc
> >>>> + * core, but under the responsibility of platform driver.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
> >>>> */
> >>>> static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>> {
> >>>> @@ -1371,7 +1382,11 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>>
> >>>> - dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
> >>>> + if (fw)
> >>>> + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name,
> >>>> + fw->size);
> >>>> + else
> >>>> + dev_info(dev, "Synchronizing with preloaded co-processor\n");
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> >>>> @@ -1718,16 +1733,22 @@ static void rproc_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>> * rproc_boot() - boot a remote processor
> >>>> * @rproc: handle of a remote processor
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...).
> >>>> + * Boot a remote processor (i.e. load its firmware, power it on, ...) from
> >>>> + * different contexts:
> >>>> + * - power off
> >>>> + * - preloaded firmware
> >>>> + * - started before kernel execution
> >>>> + * The different operations are selected thanks to properties defined by
> >>>> + * platform driver.
> >>>> *
> >>>> - * If the remote processor is already powered on, this function immediately
> >>>> - * returns (successfully).
> >>>> + * If the remote processor is already powered on at rproc level, this function
> >>>> + * immediately returns (successfully).
> >>>> *
> >>>> * Returns 0 on success, and an appropriate error value otherwise.
> >>>> */
> >>>> int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>> {
> >>>> - const struct firmware *firmware_p;
> >>>> + const struct firmware *firmware_p = NULL;
> >>>> struct device *dev;
> >>>> int ret;
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -1758,11 +1779,20 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>>
> >>>> dev_info(dev, "powering up %s\n", rproc->name);
> >>>>
> >>>> - /* load firmware */
> >>>> - ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> >>>> - if (ret < 0) {
> >>>> - dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> >>>> - goto downref_rproc;
> >>>> + if (!rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> >>>> + /* load firmware */
> >>>> + ret = request_firmware(&firmware_p, rproc->firmware, dev);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>>> + dev_err(dev, "request_firmware failed: %d\n", ret);
> >>>> + goto downref_rproc;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + } else {
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Set firmware name pointer to null as remoteproc core is not
> >>>> + * in charge of firmware loading
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + kfree(rproc->firmware);
> >>>> + rproc->firmware = NULL;
> >>>
> >>> If the MCU with pre-loaded FW crashes request_firmware() in
> >>> rproc_trigger_recovery() will return an error and rproc_start()
> >>> never called.
> >>
> >> Right, something is missing in the recovery function to prevent request_firmware call if skip_fw_load is set
> >>
> >> We also identify an issue if recovery fails:
> >> In case of recovery issue the rproc state is RPROC_CRASHED, so that it is no more possible to load a new firmware from
> >> user space.
> >> This issue is not linked to this patchset. We have patches on our shelves for this.
> >>
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> >>>> @@ -1916,8 +1946,17 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>> /* create debugfs entries */
> >>>> rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc);
> >>>>
> >>>> - /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
> >>>> - if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> >>>> + if (rproc->skip_fw_load) {
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If rproc is marked already booted, no need to wait
> >>>> + * for firmware.
> >>>> + * Just handle associated resources and start sub devices
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + ret = rproc_boot(rproc);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> + } else if (rproc->auto_boot) {
> >>>> + /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */
> >>>
> >>> I spent way too much time staring at this modification... I can't decide if a
> >>> system where the FW has been pre-loaded should be considered "auto_boot".
> >>> Indeed the result is the same, i.e the MCU is started at boot time without user
> >>> intervention.
> >>
> >> The main difference is that the firmware is loaded by the Linux remote proc in case of auto-boot.
> >> In auto-boot mode the remoteproc loads a firmware, on probe, with a specified name without any request from user space.
> >> One constraint of this mode is that the file system has to be accessible before the rproc probe.
> >
> > Indeed, but in both cases the MCU is booted automatically. In one
> > case the FW is loaded by the framework and in the other it is not. As
> > such both scenarios are "auto_boot", they simply have different
> > flavours.
> Regarding your concerns i would like to propose an alternative that will answer to following use cases:
>
> In term of use cases we can start the remote proc firmware in following modes:
> - auto boot with FW loading, resource table parsing and FW start/stop
> - auto boot without FW loading, with FW resource table parsing and FW start/stop
> - auto boot with FW attachment and resource table parsing
> - boot on userspace request with FW loading, resource table parsing and FW start/stop
> - boot on userspace request without FW loading, with FW resource table parsing and FW start/stop
> - boot on userspace request with FW attachment and resource table parsing
>
> I considered the recovery covered by these use cases...
>
> I tried to concatenate all use case to determine the behavior of the core and platform driver:
> - "auto-boot" used to decide if boot is from driver or user space request (independently from fw loading and live cycle management)
> - "skip_fw_load" allows to determine if a firmware has to be loaded or not.
> - remote Firmware live cycle (start,stop,...) are managed by the platform driver, it would have to determine the manage the remote proc depending on the mode detected.
>
> If i apply this for stm32mp1 driver:
> normal boot( FW started on user space request):
> - auto-boot = 0
> - skip_fw_load = 0
> FW loaded and started by the bootloader
> - auto-boot = 1
> - skip_firmware = 1;
>
> => on a stop: the "auto-boot" and "skip_firmware flag will be reset by the stm32rproc driver, to allow user space to load a new firmware or reste the system.
> this is considered as a ack by Bjorn today, if you have an alternative please share.

I wonder if we can achieve the same results without needing
rproc::skip_fw_load... For cases where the FW would have been loaded
and the MCU started by another entity we could simply set rproc->state
= RPROC_RUNNING in the platform driver. That way when the MCU is
stopped or crashes, there is no flag to reset, rproc->state is simply
set correctly by the current code.

I would also set auto_boot =1 in order to start the AP synchronisation
as quickly as possible and add a check in rproc_trigger_auto_boot() to
see if rproc->state == RPROC_RUNNING. If so simply call rproc_boot()
where platform specific rproc_ops would be tailored to handle a
running processor.

In my opinion the above would represent the state of the MCU rather
than the state of the FW used by the MCU. It would also provide an
opening for supporting systems where the MCU is not the life cycle
manager.

Let me know what you think...

>
> I need to rework the patchset in consequence but i would appreciate your feedback on this proposal before, to be sure that i well interpreted your concerns...
>
> Regards,
> Arnaud
>
> >
> >> This is not necessary the case, even if EPROBE_DEFER is used. In this case the driver has to be build as kernel module.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Arnaud
> >>>
> >>> I'd welcome other people's opinion on this.
> >>>
> >>>> ret = rproc_trigger_auto_boot(rproc);
> >>>> if (ret < 0)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >>>> index 16ad66683ad0..4fd5bedab4fa 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h
> >>>> @@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ struct rproc_dump_segment {
> >>>> * @table_sz: size of @cached_table
> >>>> * @has_iommu: flag to indicate if remote processor is behind an MMU
> >>>> * @auto_boot: flag to indicate if remote processor should be auto-started
> >>>> + * @skip_fw_load: remote processor has been preloaded before start sequence
> >>>> * @dump_segments: list of segments in the firmware
> >>>> * @nb_vdev: number of vdev currently handled by rproc
> >>>> */
> >>>> @@ -512,6 +513,7 @@ struct rproc {
> >>>> size_t table_sz;
> >>>> bool has_iommu;
> >>>> bool auto_boot;
> >>>> + bool skip_fw_load;
> >>>> struct list_head dump_segments;
> >>>> int nb_vdev;
> >>>> };
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.17.1
> >>>>

Next message: Mark Brown: "Applied "ASoC: dt-bindings: stm32: convert i2s to json-schema" to the asoc tree"
Previous message: Ansuel Smith: "[PATCH] cpufreq: qcom: Add support for krait based socs"
In reply to: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel"
Next in thread: Arnaud POULIQUEN: "Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] remoteproc: add support for co-processor loaded and booted before kernel"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]