Hi Daniel, Arnaud, Tanmay, Please see my reply below
On 5/12/26 10:04 AM, Levinsky, Ben wrote: > AMD General > > > > > *From: *Shah, Tanmay <[email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, May 12, 2026 at 7:53 AM > *To: *Daniel Baluta <[email protected]>; Levinsky, Ben > <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>; Mathieu > Poirier > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <linux- > [email protected]> > *Cc: *Frank Li <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>; > Pengutronix Kernel Team <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam > <[email protected]>; Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Magnus > Damm > <[email protected]>; Patrice Chotard <[email protected]>; > Maxime > Coquelin <[email protected]>; Alexandre Torgue > <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] <[email protected]>; linux-renesas- > [email protected] <[email protected]>; linux-stm32@st-md- > mailman.stormreply.com <[email protected]>; Shah, > Tanmay > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [PATCH 3/4] remoteproc: add helper for optional ELF resource > tables > > > > On 5/12/2026 2:55 AM, Daniel Baluta wrote: > > On 5/12/26 00:18, Ben Levinsky wrote: > >> [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is > important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification <https://aka.ms/ > LearnAboutSenderIdentification> ] > >> > >> Add a small helper around rproc_elf_load_rsc_table() for remoteproc > >> drivers that treat a missing ELF resource table as optional. The helper > >> returns success on -EINVAL and propagates other failures unchanged. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h > b/drivers/remoteproc/ > remoteproc_internal.h > >> index 3724a47a9748..dff87e468837 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h > >> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h > >> @@ -146,6 +146,18 @@ static inline int rproc_mem_entry_iounmap(struct > rproc > *rproc, > >> return 0; > >> } > >> > >> +static inline int rproc_elf_load_rsc_table_optional(struct rproc *rproc, > >> + const struct firmware > *fw) > >> +{ > >> + int ret; > >> + > >> + ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw); > >> + if (ret == -EINVAL) > >> + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "no resource table found\n"); > > > > You are changing loglevel here. Initial drivers use dev_info or dev_warn. > At > least I'm used > > with seeing this messages in the logs. > > > > So, what do you think on adding at least dev_info to this instead of > dev_dbg? > > > > Actually can we leave that choice to the platform driver ? There are > many use cases where the remoteproc subsystem is used to load and start > the remote core and the firmware doesn't have the resource table. We > don't want to make info level log for such use cases, as the resource > table is not expected in the first place there. Thanks for the feedback. I agree the helper should not impose a common log level. Some platforms intentionally run firmware without a resource table, so forcing a shared dev_info/dev_warn message from the helper would add noise in those cases. I'll rework this in v2 so the helper only handles the return-value behavior, while platform drivers keep control over whether the missing-table case is logged and at what level. Thanks, Ben > > >> + > >> + return ret == -EINVAL ? 0 : ret; > >> +} > >> + > >> static inline int rproc_prepare_device(struct rproc *rproc) > >> { > >> if (rproc->ops->prepare) > >> -- > >> 2.34.1 > >> > >> > > >
