On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 04:43:32PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: > 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. >
Option (1) is best but make sure people can disable the TEE interface if they don't wish to use it. > 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;