Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] remoteproc: k3-m4: Add a remoteproc driver for M4F subsystem

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 13/09/2023 13:16, Hari Nagalla wrote:
> From: Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@collabora.com>
> 
> The AM62x and AM64x SoCs of the TI K3 family has a Cortex M4F core in
> the MCU domain. This core is typically used for safety applications in a
> stand alone mode. However, some application (non safety related) may
> want to use the M4F core as a generic remote processor with IPC to the
> host processor. The M4F core has internal IRAM and DRAM memories and are
> exposed to the system bus for code and data loading.
> 


>  drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig               |  13 +
>  drivers/remoteproc/Makefile              |   1 +
>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 345 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_m4_remoteproc.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
> index 48845dc8fa85..85c1a3a2b987 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig
> @@ -339,6 +339,19 @@ config TI_K3_DSP_REMOTEPROC
>  	  It's safe to say N here if you're not interested in utilizing
>  	  the DSP slave processors.
>  
> +config TI_K3_M4_REMOTEPROC
> +	tristate "TI K3 M4 remoteproc support"
> +	depends on ARCH_K3


Missing compile testing.

...

> +
> +static int k3_m4_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +	struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> +	const struct k3_rproc_dev_data *data;
> +	struct k3_rproc *kproc;
> +	struct rproc *rproc;
> +	const char *fw_name;
> +	bool r_state = false;
> +	bool p_state = false;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +	int ret1;
> +
> +	data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> +	if (!data)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	ret = rproc_of_parse_firmware(dev, 0, &fw_name);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to parse firmware-name property, ret = %d\n",
> +			ret);
> +		return ret;

Nope, the syntax is dev_err_probe().

> +	}
> +
> +	rproc = rproc_alloc(dev, dev_name(dev), &k3_m4_rproc_ops, fw_name,
> +			    sizeof(*kproc));
> +	if (!rproc)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	rproc->has_iommu = false;
> +	rproc->recovery_disabled = true;
> +	if (data->uses_lreset) {
> +		rproc->ops->prepare = k3_rproc_prepare;
> +		rproc->ops->unprepare = k3_rproc_unprepare;
> +	}
> +	kproc = rproc->priv;
> +	kproc->rproc = rproc;
> +	kproc->dev = dev;
> +	kproc->data = data;
> +
> +	kproc->ti_sci = ti_sci_get_by_phandle(np, "ti,sci");
> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->ti_sci)) {
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->ti_sci);
> +		if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) {

No, really, do not open-code existing code.

> +			dev_err(dev, "failed to get ti-sci handle, ret = %d\n",
> +				ret);
> +		}
> +		kproc->ti_sci = NULL;
> +		goto free_rproc;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,sci-dev-id", &kproc->ti_sci_id);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "missing 'ti,sci-dev-id' property\n");
> +		goto put_sci;
> +	}
> +
> +	kproc->reset = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(kproc->reset)) {
> +		ret = PTR_ERR(kproc->reset);
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to get reset, status = %d\n", ret);

Syntax is return dev_err_probe. And everywhere else as well...


Best regards,
Krzysztof