On 03/03/2017 04:07 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:

On 03/01/2017 10:22 AM, Georgi Djakov wrote:

quoted

This patch introduce a new API to get the requirement and configure the
interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current
demand.

[..]

quoted

+int interconnect_set(struct interconnect_path *path, u32 bandwidth)
+{
+    struct interconnect_node *node;
+
+    list_for_each_entry(node, &path->node_list, search_list) {
+        if (node->icp->ops->set)
+            node->icp->ops->set(node, bandwidth);

This ops needs to take a "source" and "dest" input and you'll need to
pass in the prev/next nodes of each "node" in this list. This is needed
so that each interconnect know the local source/destination and can make
the aggregation decisions correctly based on the internal implementation
of the interconnect. For the first and last nodes in the list, the
source and destination nodes can be NULL, respectively.

I agree. Updated.

quoted

+    }
+
+    return 0;
+}
+

[..]

quoted

+void interconnect_put(struct interconnect_path *path)
+{
+    struct interconnect_node *node;
+    struct icn_qos *req;
+    struct hlist_node *tmp;
+
+    if (IS_ERR(path))
+        return;
+
+    list_for_each_entry(node, &path->node_list, search_list) {
+        hlist_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &node->qos_list, node) {
+            if (req->path == path) {
+                hlist_del(&req->node);
+                kfree(req);
+            }

Should we go through and remove any bandwidth votes that were made on
this path before we free it?

Yes, thanks! We should remove the constraints from the path, then
update the nodes and after that free the memory.

quoted

+        }
+    }
+
+    kfree(path);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(interconnect_put);
+
+int interconnect_add_provider(struct icp *icp)
+{
+    struct interconnect_node *node;
+
+    WARN(!icp->ops->xlate, "%s: .xlate is not implemented\n", __func__);
+    WARN(!icp->ops->set, "%s: .set is not implemented\n", __func__);
+
+    mutex_lock(&interconnect_provider_list_mutex);
+    list_add(&icp->icp_list, &interconnect_provider_list);
+    mutex_unlock(&interconnect_provider_list_mutex);
+
+    list_for_each_entry(node, &icp->nodes, icn_list) {
+        INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&node->qos_list);
+    }
+
+    dev_info(icp->dev, "added interconnect provider %s\n", icp->name);
+
+    return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(interconnect_add_provider);
+
+int interconnect_del_provider(struct icp *icp)
+{
+    mutex_lock(&interconnect_provider_list_mutex);
+    of_node_put(icp->of_node);
+    list_del(&icp->icp_list);

If there's a path with an active vote, we should probably return a
-EBUSY to prevent deleting a provider that's actively used?

Thanks, sounds good. Will do.

BR,
Georgi