From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758666AbcIHJnl (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 05:43:41 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:41259 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752804AbcIHJnj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 05:43:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/19] remoteproc: core: Associate action to resource request To: Lee Jones References: <1472676622-32533-1-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <1472676622-32533-9-git-send-email-loic.pallardy@st.com> <20160901072304.GC4921@dell> CC: , , , , From: loic pallardy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 11:43:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160901072304.GC4921@dell> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.201.23.23] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-08_06:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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, >> } >> } >> >> -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. True, thanks > >> + 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 need in this patch, that's why action enum defined here. Regards, Loic > >> + 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, >