On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:30:35PM +0800, peng....@oss.nxp.com wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com>
> 
>  - Add rsc_table to hold the resource table published by remote cores.
>  - Add attach hook.
>  - Add imx_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table to get resource table published by
>    remote processors.
>  - Add imx_rproc_detect_mode to detect remote cores' working mode.
>

This is describing _what_ is being done rather than _why_ it is done.

Moreover for patches 1 an 3 the subject line is tagged with "imx" while patches
2 and 4 have "imx_rproc".  I don't mind which one is used as long as it is
consistent.
 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> index 7cd09971d1a4..d6338872c6db 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/imx_rproc.c
> @@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ struct imx_rproc {
>       struct mbox_chan                *rx_ch;
>       struct work_struct              rproc_work;
>       struct workqueue_struct         *workqueue;
> +     void __iomem                    *rsc_table;
>  };
>  
>  static const struct imx_rproc_att imx_rproc_att_imx8mq[] = {
> @@ -395,8 +396,26 @@ static void imx_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
>                       __func__, vqid, err);
>  }
>  
> +static int imx_rproc_attach(struct rproc *rproc)
> +{
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct resource_table *imx_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table(struct rproc 
> *rproc, size_t *table_sz)
> +{
> +     struct imx_rproc *priv = rproc->priv;
> +
> +     /* The resource table has already been mapped in imx_rproc_addr_init */
> +     if (!priv->rsc_table)
> +             return NULL;
> +
> +     *table_sz = SZ_1K;
> +     return (struct resource_table *)priv->rsc_table;
> +}
> +
>  static const struct rproc_ops imx_rproc_ops = {
>       .prepare        = imx_rproc_prepare,
> +     .attach         = imx_rproc_attach,
>       .start          = imx_rproc_start,
>       .stop           = imx_rproc_stop,
>       .kick           = imx_rproc_kick,
> @@ -404,6 +423,7 @@ static const struct rproc_ops imx_rproc_ops = {
>       .load           = rproc_elf_load_segments,
>       .parse_fw       = imx_rproc_parse_fw,
>       .find_loaded_rsc_table = rproc_elf_find_loaded_rsc_table,
> +     .get_loaded_rsc_table = imx_rproc_get_loaded_rsc_table,
>       .sanity_check   = rproc_elf_sanity_check,
>       .get_boot_addr  = rproc_elf_get_boot_addr,
>  };
> @@ -470,6 +490,8 @@ static int imx_rproc_addr_init(struct imx_rproc *priv,
>               }
>               priv->mem[b].sys_addr = res.start;
>               priv->mem[b].size = resource_size(&res);
> +             if (!strcmp(node->name, "rsc_table"))
> +                     priv->rsc_table = priv->mem[b].cpu_addr;
>               b++;
>       }
>  
> @@ -536,6 +558,25 @@ static void imx_rproc_free_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
>       mbox_free_channel(priv->rx_ch);
>  }
>  
> +static int imx_rproc_detect_mode(struct imx_rproc *priv)
> +{
> +     const struct imx_rproc_dcfg *dcfg = priv->dcfg;
> +     struct device *dev = priv->dev;
> +     int ret;
> +     u32 val;
> +
> +     ret = regmap_read(priv->regmap, dcfg->src_reg, &val);
> +     if (ret) {
> +             dev_err(dev, "Failed to read src\n");
> +             return ret;
> +     }
> +
> +     if (!(val & dcfg->src_stop))
> +             priv->rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED;
> +
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int imx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>       struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> @@ -590,6 +631,10 @@ static int imx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>               goto err_put_mbox;
>       }
>  
> +     ret = imx_rproc_detect_mode(priv);
> +     if (ret)
> +             goto err_put_mbox;
> +

With the above:

Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org>

>       priv->clk = devm_clk_get(dev, NULL);
>       if (IS_ERR(priv->clk)) {
>               dev_err(dev, "Failed to get clock\n");
> -- 
> 2.30.0
> 

Reply via email to