Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 May 2018 09:15:15 -0600 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 05/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: write sleep/wake requests to TCS |
| |
On Wed, May 09 2018 at 17:25 -0600, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: >Hi Lina, > >On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 11:01:54AM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote: >> Sleep and wake requests are sent when the application processor >> subsystem of the SoC is entering deep sleep states like in suspend. >> These requests help lower the system power requirements when the >> resources are not in use. >> >> Sleep and wake requests are written to the TCS slots but are not >> triggered at the time of writing. The TCS are triggered by the firmware >> after the last of the CPUs has executed its WFI. Since these requests >> may come in different batches of requests, it is the job of this >> controller driver to find and arrange the requests into the available >> TCSes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> >> Reviewed-by: Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org> >> >> --- >> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c >> index c0edf3850147..b5894b001ae1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c >> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c >> >> <snip> >> >> +static int find_match(const struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, >> + int len) >> +{ >> + int i, j; >> + >> + /* Check for already cached commands */ >> + for_each_set_bit(i, tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS) { >> + if (tcs->cmd_cache[i] != cmd[0].addr) >> + continue; >> + if (i + len >= MAX_TCS_SLOTS) >> + goto seq_err; > >The command cache can have less than MAX_TCS_SLOTS slot: >
That's true. I forgot that I had optimized the cache slots. Thanks for pointing out.
>static int rpmh_probe_tcs_config(struct platform_device *pdev, > struct rsc_drv *drv) >{ > ... > tcs->cmd_cache = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, > tcs->num_tcs * ncpt, sizeof(u32), > GFP_KERNEL); > ... >} > >So the condition needs to be: > >if (i + len >= tcs->num_tcs * tcs->ncpt) > >> +static int find_slots(struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_request *msg, >> + int *tcs_id, int *cmd_id) >> +{ >> + int slot, offset; >> + int i = 0; >> + >> + /* Find if we already have the msg in our TCS */ >> + slot = find_match(tcs, msg->cmds, msg->num_cmds); >> + if (slot >= 0) >> + goto copy_data; >> + >> + /* Do over, until we can fit the full payload in a TCS */ >> + do { >> + slot = bitmap_find_next_zero_area(tcs->slots, MAX_TCS_SLOTS, >> + i, msg->num_cmds, 0); >> + if (slot == MAX_TCS_SLOTS) >> + return -ENOMEM; > >Like above, use 'tcs->num_tcs * tcs->ncpt' as maximum instead of >MAX_TCS_SLOTS. > >> +static int tcs_ctrl_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg) >> +{ >> + struct tcs_group *tcs; >> + int tcs_id = 0, cmd_id = 0; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + int ret; >> + >> + tcs = get_tcs_for_msg(drv, msg); >> + if (IS_ERR(tcs)) >> + return PTR_ERR(tcs); >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tcs->lock, flags); >> + /* find the m-th TCS and the n-th position in the TCS to write to */ > >The comment still refers to the old names 'm' and 'n'. > Really? :) Will fix.
Thanks for your review, Lina
| |