| Message ID | 1485299581-30476-1-git-send-email-spjoshi@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue 24 Jan 15:13 PST 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote: > The rproc_add_virtio_devices() requests firmware asynchronously and > triggers boot if the auto_boot flag is set. However, this > asynchronous call seems to be redundant for non auto-boot scenario > since the rproc_boot() would call request_firmware() anyways. Move > the auto_boot check to rproc_add() so that a redundant call to > _request_firmware can be avoided for non auto-boot case. > > Signed-off-by: Sarangdhar Joshi <spjoshi@codeaurora.org> Looks good, applied both patches. Regards, Bjorn > --- > > I'm requesting RFC on this patch since I'm not aware of any scenario > where we might need asynchronous firmware loading for non auto-boot case. > > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 14 ++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index f58e634..16242b0 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -970,9 +970,7 @@ static void rproc_fw_config_virtio(const struct firmware *fw, void *context) > { > struct rproc *rproc = context; > > - /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ > - if (rproc->auto_boot) > - rproc_boot(rproc); > + rproc_boot(rproc); > > release_firmware(fw); > } > @@ -1286,9 +1284,13 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc) > > /* create debugfs entries */ > rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc); > - ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); > - if (ret < 0) > - return ret; > + > + /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ > + if (rproc->auto_boot) { > + ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; > + } > > /* expose to rproc_get_by_phandle users */ > mutex_lock(&rproc_list_mutex); > -- > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >
Hi Bjorn, On 02/06/2017 01:08 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 24 Jan 15:13 PST 2017, Sarangdhar Joshi wrote: > >> The rproc_add_virtio_devices() requests firmware asynchronously and >> triggers boot if the auto_boot flag is set. However, this >> asynchronous call seems to be redundant for non auto-boot scenario >> since the rproc_boot() would call request_firmware() anyways. Move >> the auto_boot check to rproc_add() so that a redundant call to >> _request_firmware can be avoided for non auto-boot case. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sarangdhar Joshi <spjoshi@codeaurora.org> > > Looks good, applied both patches. Thanks for the review and applying these(and couple others) patches. Regards, Sarang > > Regards, > Bjorn > >> --- >> >> I'm requesting RFC on this patch since I'm not aware of any scenario >> where we might need asynchronous firmware loading for non auto-boot case. >> >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 14 ++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> index f58e634..16242b0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c >> @@ -970,9 +970,7 @@ static void rproc_fw_config_virtio(const struct firmware *fw, void *context) >> { >> struct rproc *rproc = context; >> >> - /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ >> - if (rproc->auto_boot) >> - rproc_boot(rproc); >> + rproc_boot(rproc); >> >> release_firmware(fw); >> } >> @@ -1286,9 +1284,13 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc) >> >> /* create debugfs entries */ >> rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc); >> - ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); >> - if (ret < 0) >> - return ret; >> + >> + /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ >> + if (rproc->auto_boot) { >> + ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); >> + if (ret < 0) >> + return ret; >> + } >> >> /* expose to rproc_get_by_phandle users */ >> mutex_lock(&rproc_list_mutex); >> -- >> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, >> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c index f58e634..16242b0 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c @@ -970,9 +970,7 @@ static void rproc_fw_config_virtio(const struct firmware *fw, void *context) { struct rproc *rproc = context; - /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ - if (rproc->auto_boot) - rproc_boot(rproc); + rproc_boot(rproc); release_firmware(fw); } @@ -1286,9 +1284,13 @@ int rproc_add(struct rproc *rproc) /* create debugfs entries */ rproc_create_debug_dir(rproc); - ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); - if (ret < 0) - return ret; + + /* if rproc is marked always-on, request it to boot */ + if (rproc->auto_boot) { + ret = rproc_add_virtio_devices(rproc); + if (ret < 0) + return ret; + } /* expose to rproc_get_by_phandle users */ mutex_lock(&rproc_list_mutex);
The rproc_add_virtio_devices() requests firmware asynchronously and triggers boot if the auto_boot flag is set. However, this asynchronous call seems to be redundant for non auto-boot scenario since the rproc_boot() would call request_firmware() anyways. Move the auto_boot check to rproc_add() so that a redundant call to _request_firmware can be avoided for non auto-boot case. Signed-off-by: Sarangdhar Joshi <spjoshi@codeaurora.org> --- I'm requesting RFC on this patch since I'm not aware of any scenario where we might need asynchronous firmware loading for non auto-boot case. drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)