From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759400AbcIHLCJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:02:09 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:38205 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758384AbcIHLCG (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:02:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:03:57 +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: <20160908110357.GR4921@dell> References: <1472676622-32533-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <1472676622-32533-9-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <20160901072304.GC4921@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, 08 Sep 2016, loic pallardy wrote: > On 09/01/2016 09:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > 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, [...] > > > /** > > > + * 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 need in this patch, that's why action enum defined here. Okay, good point. > > > + 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