RE: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc driver

[Ben Levinsky]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@xxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:32 PM
> To: Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xxxxxxxxxx>; sunnyliangjy@xxxxxxxxx;
> punit1.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Michal Simek <michals@xxxxxxxxxx>; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v18 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5
> remoteproc driver
> 
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 07:15:49PM +0000, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the review
> >
> 
> < ... snip ... >
> 
> > > > +	z_rproc = rproc->priv;
> > > > +	z_rproc->dev.release = zynqmp_r5_release;
> > >
> > > This is the only field of z_rproc->dev that's actually initialized, and
> > > this device is not registered with the core at all, so zynqmp_r5_release
> > > will never be called.
> > >
> > > Since it doesn't look like there's a need to create this additional
> > > device, I'd suggest:
> > > 	- Dropping the struct device from struct zynqmp_r5_rproc
> > > 	- Performing the necessary cleanup in the driver remove
> > > 	  callback instead of trying to tie it to device release
> >
> > For the most part I agree. I believe the device is still needed for
> > the mailbox client setup.
> >
> > As the call to mbox_request_channel_byname() requires its own device
> > that has the corresponding child node with the corresponding
> > mbox-related properties.
> >
> > With that in mind, is it still ok to keep the device node?
> 
> Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!
> 
> Instead of manually dealing with the device node creation for the
> individual processors, perhaps it makes more sense to use
> devm_of_platform_populate() to create them. This is also consistent with
> the way the TI K3 R5F remoteproc driver does things.
> 
> Cheers,
>  Michael

I've been working on this today for a way around it and found one that I think works with your initial suggestion,
- in z_rproc, change dev from struct device to struct device*
	^ the above is shown the usage thereof below. It is there for the mailbox setup.
- in driver probe:
	- add list_head to keep track of each core's z_rproc and for the driver remove clean up
	- in each core's probe (zynqmp_r5_probe) dothe following:


       rproc_ptr = rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &zynqmp_r5_rproc_ops,
                                                  NULL, sizeof(struct zynqmp_r5_rproc));
        if (!rproc_ptr)
                return -ENOMEM;
        z_rproc = rproc_ptr->priv;
        z_rproc->dt_node = node;
        z_rproc->rproc = rproc_ptr;
        z_rproc->dev = &rproc_ptr->dev;
        z_rproc->dev->of_node = node; 
where node is the specific R5 core's of_node/ Device tree node.
	
the above preserves most of the mailbox setup code.


With this, I have already successfully done the following in a v19 patch
- move all the previous driver release code to remove
- able to probe, start/stop r5, driver remove repeatedly

Also, this mimics the TI R5 driver code as each core's rproc has a list_head and they have a structure for the cluster which among other things maintains a linked list of the cores' specific rproc information.

Thanks
Ben