Hello Mathieu,
On 8/30/24 11:51, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Add support for releasing remote processor firmware through
> the Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) interface.
>
> The tee_rproc_release_fw() function is called in the following cases:
>
> - An error occurs in rproc_start() between the loading of the segments and
> the start of the remote processor.
> - When rproc_release_fw is called on error or after stopping the remote
> processor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliq...@foss.st.com>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 7694817f25d4..32052dedc149 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> #include <linux/rculist.h>
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> +#include <linux/remoteproc_tee.h>
> #include <linux/iommu.h>
> #include <linux/idr.h>
> #include <linux/elf.h>
> @@ -1258,6 +1259,9 @@ static int rproc_alloc_registered_carveouts(struct
> rproc *rproc)
>
> static void rproc_release_fw(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> + if (rproc->state == RPROC_OFFLINE && rproc->tee_interface)
> + tee_rproc_release_fw(rproc);
I'm requesting you expertise to fix an issue I'm facing during my test preparing
the V10.
My issue is that here, we can call the tee_rproc_release_fw() function, defined
in remoteproc_tee built as a remoteproc_tee.ko module.
I tried to use the IS_ENABLED and IS_REACHABLE macros in remoteproc_tee.h, but
without success:
- use IS_ENABLED() results in a link error: "undefined reference to
tee_rproc_release_fw."
- use IS_REACHABLE() returns false and remoteproc_core calls the inline
tee_rproc_release_fw function that just call WARN_ON(1).
To solve the issue, I can see three alternatives:
1) Modify Kconfig and remoteproc_tee.c to support only built-in.
2) Use symbol_get/symbol_put.
3) Define a new rproc_ops->release_fw operation that will be initialized to
tee_rproc_release_fw.
>From my perspective, the solution 3 seems to be the cleanest way, as it also
removes the dependency between remoteproc_core.c and remoteproc_tee.c. But
regarding previous discussion/series version, it seems that it could not be your
preferred solution.
Please, could you indicate your preference so that I can directly implement the
best solution (or perhaps you have another alternative to propose)?
Thanks in advance!
Arnaud
> +
> /* Free the copy of the resource table */
> kfree(rproc->cached_table);
> rproc->cached_table = NULL;
> @@ -1348,7 +1352,7 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const
> struct firmware *fw)
> if (ret) {
> dev_err(dev, "failed to prepare subdevices for %s: %d\n",
> rproc->name, ret);
> - goto reset_table_ptr;
> + goto release_fw;
> }
>
> /* power up the remote processor */
> @@ -1376,7 +1380,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const
> struct firmware *fw)
> rproc->ops->stop(rproc);
> unprepare_subdevices:
> rproc_unprepare_subdevices(rproc);
> -reset_table_ptr:
> +release_fw:
> + if (rproc->tee_interface)
> + tee_rproc_release_fw(rproc);
> rproc->table_ptr = rproc->cached_table;
>
> return ret;
