[PATCH v2 3/4] remoteproc: Supply controller driver for ST's Remote Processors
From: Nathan Lynch <hidden>
Date: 2015-08-28 16:25:48
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On 08/28/2015 05:31 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig index 28c711f..72e97d7 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig@@ -77,4 +77,13 @@ config DA8XX_REMOTEPROC It's safe to say n here if you're not interested in multimedia offloading. +config ST_REMOTEPROC + tristate "ST remoteproc support" + depends on ARCH_STI + select REMOTEPROC + help + Say y here to support ST's adjunct processors via the remote + processor framework. + This can be either built-in or a loadable module. +
The code uses reset_control_* APIs, so this should depend on RESET_CONTROLLER, no?
+/* + * ST's Remote Processor Control Driver + * + * Copyright (C) 2015 STMicroelectronics - All Rights Reserved + * + * Author: Ludovic Barre [off-list ref] + * + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) + * any later version. + */
OK, but:
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");These are not in agreement. You want "GPL" for MODULE_LICENSE if you intend v2 or later.
+static int st_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
+{
+ struct st_rproc *st_rproc = rproc->priv;
+ int ret, err = 0;
+
+ if (st_rproc->config->sw_reset) {
+ ret = reset_control_assert(st_rproc->sw_reset);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to assert S/W Reset\n");
+ }
+
+ if (st_rproc->config->pwr_reset) {
+ err = reset_control_assert(st_rproc->pwr_reset);
+ if (err)
+ dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to assert Power Reset\n");
+ }
+
+ clk_disable(st_rproc->clk);
+
+ return ret ?: err;
+}Sorry, but I think this is a stylistically inadequate response to my earlier comments. At least name the status variables sw_ret and pwr_ret or something. And it looks like ret could be used uninitialized. Also, do you want to unconditionally call clk_disable even if you've encountered errors?
+static int st_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
+{
+ struct st_rproc *st_rproc = rproc->priv;
+ int err;
+
+ regmap_update_bits(st_rproc->boot_base, st_rproc->boot_offset,
+ st_rproc->config->bootaddr_mask, rproc->bootaddr);
+
+ err = clk_enable(st_rproc->clk);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to enable clock\n");
+ return err;
+ }
+
+ if (st_rproc->config->sw_reset) {
+ err = reset_control_deassert(st_rproc->sw_reset);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to deassert S/W Reset\n");
+ return err;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (st_rproc->config->pwr_reset) {
+ err = reset_control_deassert(st_rproc->pwr_reset);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&rproc->dev, "Failed to deassert Power Reset\n");
+ return err;
+ }
+ }
+
+ dev_info(&rproc->dev, "Started from 0x%x\n", rproc->bootaddr);
+
+ return 0;
+}Does this want to unwind any of its operations if it encounters a failure?