On 5/12/26 00:18, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is
> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> Add a small helper around rproc_elf_load_rsc_table() for remoteproc
> drivers that treat a missing ELF resource table as optional. The helper
> returns success on -EINVAL and propagates other failures unchanged.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> index 3724a47a9748..dff87e468837 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h
> @@ -146,6 +146,18 @@ static inline int rproc_mem_entry_iounmap(struct rproc
> *rproc,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int rproc_elf_load_rsc_table_optional(struct rproc *rproc,
> + const struct firmware *fw)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = rproc_elf_load_rsc_table(rproc, fw);
> + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> + dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "no resource table found\n");
You are changing loglevel here. Initial drivers use dev_info or dev_warn. At
least I'm used
with seeing this messages in the logs.
So, what do you think on adding at least dev_info to this instead of dev_dbg?
> +
> + return ret == -EINVAL ? 0 : ret;
> +}
> +
> static inline int rproc_prepare_device(struct rproc *rproc)
> {
> if (rproc->ops->prepare)
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
