[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: imx: Skip return value check for some special SCU firmware APIs
On 27.09.2019 04:20, Anson Huang wrote:
>> On 2019-09-26 1:06 PM, Marco Felsch wrote:
>>> On 19-09-26 08:03, Anson Huang wrote:
>>>>> On 19-09-25 18:07, Anson Huang wrote:
>>>>>> The SCU firmware does NOT always have return value stored in
>>>>>> message header's function element even the API has response data,
>>>>>> those special APIs are defined as void function in SCU firmware, so
>>>>>> they should be treated as return success always.
>>>>>> +static const struct imx_sc_rpc_msg whitelist[] = {
>>>>>> + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func =
>>>>>> + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func =
>>>>> Is this going to be extended in the near future? I see some upcoming
>>>>> problems here if someone uses a different scu-fw<->kernel
>>>>> combination as nxp would suggest.
>>>> Could be, but I checked the current APIs, ONLY these 2 will be used
>>>> in Linux kernel, so I ONLY add these 2 APIs for now.
>>> Okay.
>>>> However, after rethink, maybe we should add another imx_sc_rpc API
>>>> for those special APIs? To avoid checking it for all the APIs called which
>> may impact some performance.
>>>> Still under discussion, if you have better idea, please advise, thanks!
>> My suggestion is to refactor the code and add a new API for the this "no
>> error value" convention. Internally they can call a common function with
>> flags.
> If I understand your point correctly, that means the loop check of whether the API
> is with "no error value" for every API still NOT be skipped, it is just refactoring the code,
> right?

>> Right now developers who want to make SCFW calls in upstream need to
>> define the message struct in their driver based on protocol documentation.
>> This includes:
>> * Binary layout of the message (a packed struct)
>> * If the message has a response (already a bool flag)
>> * If an error code is returned (this patch adds support for it)
>> Since callers are already exposed to the binary protocol exposing them to
>> minor quirks of the calling convention also seems reasonable. Having the
>> low-level IPC code peek at message IDs seems like a hack; this belong at a
>> slightly higher level.
> A little confused, so what you suggested is to add make the imx_scu_call_rpc()
> becomes the "slightly higher level" API, then in this API, check the message IDs
> to decide whether to return error value, then calls a new API which will have
> the low-level IPC code, the this new API will have a flag passed from imx_scu_call_rpc()
> function, am I right?

No, I mean there should be no loop enumerating svc/func ids: *the caller
should know* that it's calling a func which doesn't return an error code
and call a different variant of imx_scu_call_rpc

Maybe add an internal __imx_scu_call_rpc_flags and turn the current
imx_scu_call_rpc into a wrapper.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-27 13:17    [W:0.100 / U:1.968 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site