Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] firmware: mediatek: add adsp ipc protocol interface
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-24 10:25:40
Also in:
alsa-devel, linux-devicetree, linux-mediatek, lkml
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:45:14PM +0800, allen-kh.cheng wrote:
drivers/firmware/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/firmware/Makefile | 1 + drivers/firmware/mediatek/Kconfig | 10 ++ drivers/firmware/mediatek/Makefile | 2 + drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++ .../linux/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.h | 72 ++++++++++ 6 files changed, 216 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c create mode 100644 include/linux/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.h
The patch should move before the 2nd patch in the series as the 2nd patch uses mtk-adsp-ipc.h.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c b/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
[...]
+int adsp_ipc_send(struct mtk_adsp_ipc *ipc, unsigned int idx, uint32_t op)
+{
+ struct mtk_adsp_chan *dsp_chan = &ipc->chans[idx];
+ struct adsp_mbox_ch_info *ch_info = dsp_chan->ch->con_priv;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (idx >= MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM)
+ return -EINVAL;If idx >= MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM, the invalid memory access has occurred at beginning of the function.
+static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{[...]
+ device_set_of_node_from_dev(&pdev->dev, pdev->dev.parent);
Why does it need to call device_set_of_node_from_dev()?
+ for (i = 0; i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM; i++) {
+ chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "mbox%d", i);
+ if (!chan_name)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ dsp_chan = &dsp_ipc->chans[i];
+ cl = &dsp_chan->cl;
+ cl->dev = dev->parent;
+ cl->tx_block = false;
+ cl->knows_txdone = false;
+ cl->tx_prepare = NULL;
+ cl->rx_callback = adsp_ipc_recv;
+
+ dsp_chan->ipc = dsp_ipc;
+ dsp_chan->idx = i;
+ dsp_chan->ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, chan_name);
+ if (IS_ERR(dsp_chan->ch)) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(dsp_chan->ch);
+ if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to request mbox chan %d ret %d\n",
+ i, ret);If ret == -EPROBE_DEFER, wouldn't it need to return -EPROBE_DEFER? It doesn't retry later if -EPROBE_DEFER. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel