Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remoteproc_virtio: add shm_io for remoteproc virtio #542

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

CV-Bowen
Copy link
Contributor

@CV-Bowen CV-Bowen commented Dec 4, 2023

Now the rpmsg device need pass a share memory io region to rpmsg_init_vdev().
I think every virtio device need a share memory io to access the share memory and this region should be provided by the transport layer. Like the MMIO transport layer did in OpenAMP.

So I add shm_io in the remoteproc virtio device and also provide an API to set it.

Now the rpmsg device need pass a share memory io region to
rpmsg_init_vdev().
I think every virtio device need a share memory io to access the share
memory and this region should be provided by the transport layer.
Like the MMIO transport layer did in OpenAMP.

So I add shm_io in the remoteproc virtio device and also provide a API
to set it.

Signed-off-by: Bowen Wang <wangbowen6@xiaomi.com>
@tnmysh
Copy link
Collaborator

tnmysh commented Dec 18, 2023

Any usage of this API anywhere ? Either in demos or OpenAMP ?
If not, may be not right time to have this change.
Also we don't alwasy assume shm_io will be always used. dmabuf based memory allocation is also possible. I think such use case was posted by TI in another PR.

@arnopo, @edmooring any thoughts?

@arnopo
Copy link
Collaborator

arnopo commented Dec 19, 2023

Quite agree with @tnmysh. This PR introduces an unused field. If possible I would prefer it to be integrated in a PR that provides the full picture of the need.

@tnmysh : I remember we discussed the possibility of using dmabuf-based memory allocation in a meeting, but I don't see any associated PR or issue. Could you please provide a reference if you have it?

Copy link
Contributor

@edmooring edmooring left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are there any consumers for this new API? I can't find any in either open-amp or openamp-system-reference.

@CV-Bowen
Copy link
Contributor Author

CV-Bowen commented Jan 5, 2024

@arnopo @tnmysh @edmooring Thanks, I use this API in NuttX (but code not up streamed). We want make the remoteproc transport layer supports more virtio devices.
I will continue this PR when I up streamed the NuttX part code.

@CV-Bowen CV-Bowen marked this pull request as draft January 5, 2024 08:11
Copy link

This pull request has been marked as a stale pull request because it has been open (more than) 45 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Feb 20, 2024
@CV-Bowen
Copy link
Contributor Author

CV-Bowen commented Apr 9, 2024

@tnmysh : I remember we discussed the possibility of using dmabuf-based memory allocation in a meeting, but I don't see any associated PR or issue. Could you please provide a reference if you have it?

@tnmysh I want to continue this PR and I'm interested in the dma method. That will be very thankfully if you can proviud a reference if you have it.

@tnmysh
Copy link
Collaborator

tnmysh commented Apr 9, 2024

@arnopo , @CV-Bowen here is PR that mentions using dma-buf:

OpenAMP/libmetal#82

I remember TI folks were working to update that PR. Not sure about latest status.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Apr 10, 2024
Copy link

This pull request has been marked as a stale pull request because it has been open (more than) 45 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants