From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753398AbcIAHVV (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:21:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:35727 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752725AbcIAHVU (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 03:21:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:23:04 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Loic Pallardy Cc: bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, ohad@wizery.com, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/19] remoteproc: core: Associate action to resource request Message-ID: <20160901072304.GC4921@dell> References: <1472676622-32533-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <1472676622-32533-9-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1472676622-32533-9-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, Loic Pallardy wrote: > With new rproc_request_resource API, rproc driver has now the > capability to provide resources to remoteproc in order to modify > firmware resource table. > But in some cases, other operations are needed like compatibility > check between resources defined at firmware level and those handled > by rproc driver, or remoteproc local resource management when firmware > has no resource table. > > This patch associates action to each resource request to: > - verify a resource > - update/amend a resource in firmware resource table > - handle locally a resource > > Signed-off-by: Loic Pallardy > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 3282a4e..cd64fae 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -876,16 +876,20 @@ static void rproc_dump_resource_table(struct rproc *rproc, > } > } > > -int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, void *resource) > +int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, u32 action, void *resource) > { > struct device *dev = &rproc->dev; > struct rproc_request_resource *request; > + struct fw_rsc_vdev *v; > int size; > > request = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!request) > return -ENOMEM; > > + if (action > RSC_ACT_LAST) ">=". *_LAST is not a valid request. > + return -EINVAL; The switch() statement below should ha > switch (type) { > case RSC_CARVEOUT: > size = sizeof(struct fw_rsc_carveout); > @@ -896,6 +900,12 @@ int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, void *resource) > case RSC_TRACE: > size = sizeof(struct fw_rsc_trace); > break; > + case RSC_VDEV: > + v = resource; > + size = sizeof(struct fw_rsc_vdev); > + size += v->num_of_vrings * sizeof(struct fw_rsc_vdev_vring); > + size += v->config_len; > + break; > default: > dev_err(dev, "Unsupported resource type: %d\n", type); > return -EINVAL; > @@ -908,6 +918,7 @@ int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, void *resource) > memcpy(request->resource, resource, size); > request->type = type; > request->size = size; > + request->action = action; > > list_add_tail(&request->node, &rproc->override_resources); > > diff --git a/include/linux/remoteproc.h b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > index 4e2f822..2b0f1d7 100644 > --- a/include/linux/remoteproc.h > +++ b/include/linux/remoteproc.h > @@ -335,11 +335,34 @@ struct rproc_mem_entry { > }; > > /** > + * enum rproc_request_action - types of actions associated to a resource > + * request > + * > + * @RSC_ACT_CHECK: request to verify this resource with firmware one > + * @RSC_ACT_UPDATE: request to update firmware resource table with associated > + * resource if possible > + * @RSC_ACT_FORCE_UPDATE: force firmware resource table update with associated > + * resource > + * @RSC_ACT_LOCAL: request to handle this resource localy but not to update > + * firmware resource table > + * @RSC_ACT_LAST: just keep this one at the end > + */ > +enum rproc_request_action { > + RSC_ACT_VERIFY = 0, > + RSC_ACT_UPDATE = 1, > + RSC_ACT_FORCE_UPDATE = 2, > + RSC_ACT_LOCAL = 3, For reviewing purposes I suggest adding these entries as you start to support them. Then we have the code and the suggested comment in one patch for easy comparison. > + RSC_ACT_LAST = 4, > +}; > + > +/** > * struct rproc_requested_resources - add a resource to the resource table > * > * @resource: pointer to a 'struct fw_rsc_*' resource > * @type: 'fw_resource_type' resource type > * @size: size of resource > + * @action: action associated the resource > * @node: list node > * > * Resources can be added by platform-specific rproc drivers calling > @@ -350,6 +373,7 @@ struct rproc_request_resource { > void *resource; > u32 type; > u32 size; > + u32 action; > struct list_head node; > }; > > @@ -517,7 +541,7 @@ struct rproc_vdev { > u32 rsc_offset; > }; > > -int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, void *res); > +int rproc_request_resource(struct rproc *rproc, u32 type, u32 action, void *res); > struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle); > struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name, > const struct rproc_ops *ops, -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog