lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v0 1/2] interconnect: Add generic interconnect controller API
From
Date
On 03/03/2017 04:07 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 03/01/2017 10:22 AM, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> 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.
>>

[..]

>> +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.

>
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +

[..]

>> +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.

>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-14 16:49    [W:0.102 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site