Hi Tanmay,

Thanks for the refactoring, this is in line with what Bjorn and I have talked
about at Plumbers.  Please see my comments below.

On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 02:11:24PM -0800, Tanmay Shah wrote:
> From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org>
> 
> Multi-cluster remoteproc designs typically have the following DT
> declaration:
> 
>       remoteproc_cluster {
>               compatible = "soc,remoteproc-cluster";
> 
>                 core0: core0 {
>                       compatible = "soc,remoteproc-core"
>                         memory-region;
>                         sram;
>                 };
> 
>                 core1: core1 {
>                       compatible = "soc,remoteproc-core"
>                         memory-region;
>                         sram;
>                 }
>         };
> 
> A driver exists for the cluster rather than the individual cores
> themselves so that operation mode and HW specific configurations
> applicable to the cluster can be made.
> 
> Because the driver exists at the cluster level and not the individual
> core level, function rproc_get_by_phandle() fails to return the
> remoteproc associated with the phandled it is called for.
> 
> This patch enhances rproc_get_by_phandle() by looking for the cluster's
> driver when the driver for the immediate remoteproc's parent is not
> found.
> 
> Reported-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levin...@xilinx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org>

Humm... You wrote the code in this patch so you also deserve some credit.  If I
end up applying this set I will add myself as a co-developer, i.e
Co-developed-by:, and add your SoB.  If you end up re-spinning this set then
simply do so for the next revision.

As far as I am concerned this patchset is ready.  I will wait to see if other
people would like to see something adjusted.

Mathieu

> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c 
> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index 695cce218e8c..0b3b34085e2f 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>  #include <linux/idr.h>
>  #include <linux/elf.h>
>  #include <linux/crc32.h>
> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
>  #include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
>  #include <linux/virtio_ids.h>
>  #include <linux/virtio_ring.h>
> @@ -2112,6 +2113,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_detach);
>  struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
>  {
>       struct rproc *rproc = NULL, *r;
> +     struct device_driver *driver;
>       struct device_node *np;
>  
>       np = of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle);
> @@ -2122,7 +2124,26 @@ struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
>       list_for_each_entry_rcu(r, &rproc_list, node) {
>               if (r->dev.parent && device_match_of_node(r->dev.parent, np)) {
>                       /* prevent underlying implementation from being removed 
> */
> -                     if (!try_module_get(r->dev.parent->driver->owner)) {
> +
> +                     /*
> +                      * If the remoteproc's parent has a driver, the
> +                      * remoteproc is not part of a cluster and we can use
> +                      * that driver.
> +                      */
> +                     driver = r->dev.parent->driver;
> +
> +                     /*
> +                      * If the remoteproc's parent does not have a driver,
> +                      * look for the driver associated with the cluster.
> +                      */
> +                     if (!driver) {
> +                             if (r->dev.parent->parent)
> +                                     driver = r->dev.parent->parent->driver;
> +                             if (!driver)
> +                                     break;
> +                     }
> +
> +                     if (!try_module_get(driver->owner)) {
>                               dev_err(&r->dev, "can't get owner\n");
>                               break;
>                       }
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Reply via email to