Hi Tzung-Bi,

Thanks for your suggestions.

On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:25 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:45:14PM +0800, allen-kh.cheng wrote:

quoted

 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

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c

b/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c

[...]

quoted

+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.

quoted

+static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{

[...]

quoted

+	device_set_of_node_from_dev(&pdev->dev, pdev->dev.parent);

Why does it need to call device_set_of_node_from_dev()?

The original design regards mt8195 sof of_node as a parent deivce of
mtk-adsp-ipc.

device_set_of_node_from_dev will set of_node_reuse flag to prevent
driver from attempting to claim any mbox ipc resources already claimed
by the sof dsp device.

quoted

+	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.

If ret != -EPROBE_DEFER, it will show a error message then goto out.

If ret == -EPROBE_DEFER, probe funcation also will goto out. 


Both of them will return ret. will not go to next round.

Thanks,
Allen



_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel