Am 20.04.2023 um 14:11 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/20/23 14:03, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Michal,
Am 20.04.2023 um 13:06 schrieb Michal Simek:
Hi,
On 4/19/23 09:58, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
Hi Michal,
Am 17.04.2023 um 12:16 schrieb Michal Simek:
On 4/3/23 15:34, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<stefan.herbrechtsme...@weidmueller.com>
Mask the expected and show the unexpected warning "No permission to
change config object" for NODE_OCM_BANK_0 because this node is
used to
detect if further zynqmp_pmufw_node function calls should be
skipped.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<stefan.herbrechtsme...@weidmueller.com>
---
drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
index dc8e3ad2b9..8435b58ef9 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/firmware-zynqmp.c
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ int zynqmp_pmufw_load_config_object(const void
*cfg_obj, size_t size)
err = xilinx_pm_request(PM_SET_CONFIGURATION,
(u32)(u64)cfg_obj, 0, 0,
0, ret_payload);
if (err == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS) {
- if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] ==
NODE_OCM_BANK_0) {
+ if (((u32 *)cfg_obj)[NODE_ID_LOCATION] !=
NODE_OCM_BANK_0) {
printf("PMUFW: No permission to change
config object\n");
return err;
}
First of all we should very likely create a macro for NODE_OCM_BANK_0
to cover that dependency that it is used in 3 different locations
which have to match.
Okay, I will add a PMUFW_CFG_OBJ_SUPPORT_NODE macro.
The second is the change you have in 2/2 should be the part of this
patch because when only 1/2 is applied you change behavior.
The patches should be independent, and the behavior change is
intended.
The message should be printed if you don’t heave the permission for a
specific config object and not if the driver checks for support of
config objects. The NODE_OCM_BANK_0 call should never fail if load of
config objects is supported.
And changes in 2/2 makes sense.
I would be even fine to move skip_config out of zynqmp_pmufw_node()
The zynqmp_pmufw_node() function doesn't return an error and the
skip_config variable is static inside the function.
and setting up skip_config value directly in zynqmp_power_probe() not
to check in every call.
We still need to check the skip_config variable inside
zynqmp_pmufw_node
to skip the load of the config object if the pmufw doesn't support it.
85 if (ret == XST_PM_NO_ACCESS && id == NODE_OCM_BANK_0)
86 skip_config = true;
Without testing on HW I though to change it like this that skip_config
is configured and checked only once at probe time.
What do you think?
Patch looks okay except the printf. Is this really necessary? Could we
use a debug instead?
It is feature which you need to explicitly enable in PMUFW to work.
Is this information really necessary for a production build?
It means having information in boot log is quite worth.
Either we should print a message in any case or only if the feature is
disabled because in this case the zynqmp_pmufw_node() is a nop.
Actually maybe even we should create variable based on it to be able
to use it in scripts.
Because it is everybody decision if you want to let OS to send that
config fragments to PMUFW or just close that doors (right now you can
do it via command).
Also thinking that by default that skip_config should be false by
default and only enable it before calling that OCM. Or just change the
name to enable_config to be able to place it to bss section.
The skip_config is false by default and the function is called by the
probe as first user.
Definitely it should be tested to make sure that we don't break
existing behavior.
Regards
Stefan
________________________________
Kommanditgesellschaft - Sitz: Detmold - Amtsgericht Lemgo HRA 2790 -
Komplementärin: Weidmüller Interface Führungsgesellschaft mbH -
Sitz: Detmold - Amtsgericht Lemgo HRB 3924;
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Timo Berger, Volker Bibelhausen, Dr. Sebastian Durst,
André Sombecki;
USt-ID-Nr. DE124599660
