From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@bootlin.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Andersson" <andersson@kernel.org>,
"Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
"Suman Anna" <s-anna@ti.com>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
"Alexandre Belloni" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
"Udit Kumar" <u-kumar1@ti.com>,
"Thomas Richard" <thomas.richard@bootlin.com>,
"Gregory CLEMENT" <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
"Hari Nagalla" <hnagalla@ti.com>,
"Théo Lebrun" <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>,
linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: k3_r5_rproc_stop: code reorder
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:18:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zn8orCbTx9VtA9Em@p14s> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240621150058.319524-4-richard.genoud@bootlin.com>
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 05:00:57PM +0200, Richard Genoud wrote:
> In the next commit, a RP_MBOX_SHUTDOWN message will be sent in
> k3_r5_rproc_stop() to the remote proc (in lockstep on not)
> Thus, the sanity check "do not allow core 0 to stop before core 1"
> should be moved at the beginning of the function so that the generic case
> can be dealt with.
>
> In order to have an easier patch to review, those actions are broke in
> two patches:
> - this patch: moving the sanity check at the beginning (No functional
> change).
> - next patch: doing the real job (sending shutdown messages to remote
> procs before halting them).
>
> Basically, we had:
> - cluster_mode actions
> - !cluster_mode sanity check
> - !cluster_mode actions
> And now:
> - !cluster_mode sanity check
> - cluster_mode actions
> - !cluster_mode actions
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@bootlin.com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> index 1f18b08618c8..a2ead87952c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> @@ -636,16 +636,8 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> struct k3_r5_core *core1, *core = kproc->core;
> int ret;
>
> - /* halt all applicable cores */
> - if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) {
> - list_for_each_entry(core, &cluster->cores, elem) {
> - ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core);
> - if (ret) {
> - core = list_prev_entry(core, elem);
> - goto unroll_core_halt;
> - }
> - }
> - } else {
> +
> + if (cluster->mode != CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) {
> /* do not allow core 0 to stop before core 1 */
> core1 = list_last_entry(&cluster->cores, struct k3_r5_core,
> elem);
> @@ -656,6 +648,18 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> ret = -EPERM;
> goto out;
> }
> + }
> +
> + /* halt all applicable cores */
> + if (cluster->mode == CLUSTER_MODE_LOCKSTEP) {
> + list_for_each_entry(core, &cluster->cores, elem) {
> + ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core);
> + if (ret) {
> + core = list_prev_entry(core, elem);
> + goto unroll_core_halt;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
>
> ret = k3_r5_core_halt(core);
> if (ret)
With this patch, the "else" in this "if" condition is coupled with the "if" from
the lockstep mode, making the code extremaly hard to read. The original code
has a k3_r5_core_halt() in both "if" conditions, making the condition
independent from one another.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-28 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-21 15:00 [PATCH 0/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce suspend to ram support Richard Genoud
2024-06-21 15:00 ` [PATCH 1/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix IPC-only mode detection Richard Genoud
2024-06-28 19:53 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-06-28 19:58 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-07-01 9:13 ` Hari Nagalla
2024-07-01 16:38 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-06-21 15:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce PM suspend/resume handlers Richard Genoud
2024-06-28 20:48 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-07-01 7:30 ` Richard GENOUD
2024-07-01 19:02 ` kernel test robot
2024-06-21 15:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: k3_r5_rproc_stop: code reorder Richard Genoud
2024-06-28 21:18 ` Mathieu Poirier [this message]
2024-07-01 8:03 ` Richard GENOUD
2024-07-01 16:35 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-07-01 16:49 ` Richard GENOUD
2024-06-21 15:00 ` [PATCH 4/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: support for graceful stop of remote cores Richard Genoud
2024-06-28 21:20 ` Mathieu Poirier
2024-07-01 16:38 ` Richard GENOUD
2024-06-28 22:50 ` Andrew Davis
2024-07-01 16:48 ` Richard GENOUD
2024-07-01 21:55 ` kernel test robot
2024-06-28 21:23 ` [PATCH 0/4] remoteproc: k3-r5: Introduce suspend to ram support Mathieu Poirier
2024-07-01 9:59 ` Hari Nagalla
2024-07-08 7:33 ` Richard GENOUD
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Zn8orCbTx9VtA9Em@p14s \
--to=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=hnagalla@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=p.zabel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=richard.genoud@bootlin.com \
--cc=s-anna@ti.com \
--cc=theo.lebrun@bootlin.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=thomas.richard@bootlin.com \
--cc=u-kumar1@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).