RE: [RFC 5/8] remoteproc: add davinci implementation

["Grosen, Mark" <mgrosen@ti.com>]

> From: Nori, Sekhar
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 8:44 AM
> 
> Hi Mark,

Sekhar, thanks for your feedback and ideas. Comments below.

Mark

> Since procedure to set the boot address varies across DaVinci
> platforms, you could have a callback populated in platform data
> which will be implemented differently for original DaVinci and
> DA8xx devices.

I looked at DM6467 and it's the same as OMAPL13x, except at a different
address. Rather than a callback, it could be just an address in the
platform data.

> 
> Also, all PSC accesses are better off going through clock
> framework to ensure proper locking and modularity.
> 
> To assert/de-assert local reset when enabling or disabling PSC,
> you could use a flag in the clock structure to indicate the need
> for this. This way, if there is any other module needing a local
> reset, it can just define the same flag. Similarly, if the DSP
> does not need a local reset on a particular platform, that
> platform can simply skip the flag.
> 
> This can be done in a manner similar to how the support for
> a forced transition PSC was added here:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/662941/

Yes, I like this idea - much cleaner. For example, the start() method
becomes (pseudo-code):

start()
{
    /* bootaddrreg derived from platform data */
    bootaddrreg = boot_address;

    clk_enable();
}

Referring to your patch above, would it be better to just pass
the flags into the davinci_psc_config() function rather than breaking out more
arguments for each flag?

Mark