On 5/12/26 09:55, Daniel Baluta wrote:
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?
+1 for dev_info (dev_warn is used in stm32_rproc_parse_fw(), but ok to
move to dev_info)
Regards,
Arnaud
+
+ return ret == -EINVAL ? 0 : ret;
+}
+
static inline int rproc_prepare_device(struct rproc *rproc)
{
if (rproc->ops->prepare)
--
2.34.1
