lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/3] soc: qcom: apr: Add avs/audio tracking functionality
On 2020-01-03 02:27, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Sun 29 Dec 21:00 PST 2019, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c
> [..]
>> -static void of_register_apr_devices(struct device *dev)
>> +static void of_apr_add_pd_lookups(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> + const char *service_name, *service_path;
>> struct apr *apr = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> struct device_node *node;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + for_each_child_of_node(dev->of_node, node) {
>> + ret = of_property_read_string_index(node, "qcom,protection-domain",
>> + 0, &service_name);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + continue;
>
> While this implies that the qcom,protection-domain property is
> missing...
>
>> +
>> + ret = of_property_read_string_index(node, "qcom,protection-domain",
>> + 1, &service_path);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + continue;
>
> ...this would imply that it's there but the format is wrong. I think
> you
> should log this and propagate the error.
>
>> +
>> + ret = pdr_add_lookup(&apr->pdr, service_name, service_path);
>> + if (ret && ret != -EALREADY)
>> + dev_err(dev, "pdr add lookup failed: %d\n", ret);
>
> So we have a DT that denotes that PDR is required, but we failed to
> register a lookup (for some reason). That would imply that apr is not
> going to work. I think you should propagate this and make apr_probe()
> fail to make this obvious.

this was predominantly done to deal
with a mix of apr devices where some
of them are independent of PDs so
making apr_probe fail is detrimental
here. Also apr devices having improper
format will not be registered or removed.

>
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void of_register_apr_devices(struct device *dev, const char
>> *svc_path)
>> +{
>> + struct apr *apr = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> + struct device_node *node;
>> + const char *service_path;
>> + int ret;
>>
>> for_each_child_of_node(dev->of_node, node) {
>> struct apr_device_id id = { {0} };
>
> I think you should add a comment here describing what's actually going
> on. Something along the lines of:
>
> /*
> * This function is called with svc_path NULL during apr_probe(), in
> * which case we register any apr devices without a
> * qcom,protection-domain specified.
> *
> * Then as the protection domains becomes available (if applicable)
> this
> * function is again called, but with svc_path representing the service
> * becoming available. In this case we register any apr devices with a
> * matching qcom,protection-domain.
> */

Thanks for writing ^^ up will include
it in my next re-spin.

>
>>
>> + ret = of_property_read_string_index(node, "qcom,protection-domain",
>> + 1, &service_path);
>> + if (svc_path) {
>> + /* skip APR services that are PD independent */
>> + if (ret)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* skip APR services whose PD paths don't match */
>> + if (strcmp(service_path, svc_path))
>> + continue;
>> + } else {
>> + /* skip APR services whose PD lookups are registered */
>> + if (ret == 0)
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-03 13:48    [W:0.090 / U:10.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site