From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:02:33 -0700 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: q6v5-pil: add SCM probe dependency Message-ID: <20181009170232.GA86621@ban.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <20181009020805.143982-1-briannorris@chromium.org> <20181009062125.GA2518@tuxbook-pro> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181009062125.GA2518@tuxbook-pro> To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Sibi Sankar , Ohad Ben-Cohen , linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:21:25PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon 08 Oct 19:08 PDT 2018, Brian Norris wrote: > > > Similar to qcom_q6v5_pas and qcom_wcnss drivers, probe will fail if SCM > > is not up. > > > > Thanks Brian, this dependency was introduced with the memory ownership > support. That's a good point. I'm actually not that familiar with this particular driver--I was just trying to resolve an OOPS I saw while bringing this driver up--but that does look correct. > I applied it with an updated conditional to make it explicit that it > related to need_mem_protection, updated the commit message to describe > actual relationship to the memory protection mechanism and added a > Fixes: tag. Your version looks good, thanks. > Don't we also need to add the ability to disable need_mem_protection > when we're running ATF? I'm not sure exactly, but FWIW I'm running some form of ATF on SDM845 and I'm running with 'needs_memory_protection' (hence, this patch). Regards, Brian