lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context
From
Date
Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for the review. Will make all the suggested changes.

On 05/19/2018 01:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>
>> Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
>> handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
>> and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
>> wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
>> re-enable them on remoteproc device start.
>
> Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
> Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?
>

will split it into separate commits

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
>> struct qcom_smem_state *state;
>> unsigned stop_bit;
>>
>> + unsigned int handover_interrupt;
>> + unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
>> + unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
>
> Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".
>

ok

>> +
>> struct clk *active_clks[8];
>> struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
>> int active_clk_count;
>> @@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
>> struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
>> struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
>> bool need_mem_protection;
>> + bool unvoted_flag;
>> int mpss_perm;
>> int mba_perm;
>> int version;
>> @@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> int xfermemop_ret;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
>> ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> if (ret)
>> goto reclaim_mpss;
>>
>> + enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> + enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> + enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>> +
>> ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
>> msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
>> if (ret == 0) {
>> + disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> + disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> + disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>> dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
>> ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>> goto reclaim_mpss;
>> @@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>> "Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
>> qproc->running = true;
>>
>> - q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> - qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> - q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> - qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> -
>> return 0;
>>
>> reclaim_mpss:
>> @@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> WARN_ON(ret);
>>
>> reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
>> + disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> + if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
>> + q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> + qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> + q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> + qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> + }
>
> Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
> places?

Will create two separate functions for enable/disable

>
>> + disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> + disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>
> Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
> together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
> resource disable.

Nope they can be grouped together.

>
>> +
>> q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
>> qproc->active_clk_count);
>> q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
> [..]
>> @@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> qproc->version = desc->version;
>> qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
>> - ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
>> + ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
>> + &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>
> I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
> first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
> invalid irq number.

I'll inline the function.

>
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + goto free_rproc;
>> + disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>
> I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?
>

yes just to keep things symmetric.

>> +
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-21 18:50    [W:0.076 / U:3.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site