Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:48:21 -0700 | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] msm: Peripheral Image Loader (PIL) driver |
| |
On 03/16/2011 11:40 AM, David Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16 2011, Daniel Walker wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 20:44 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> On 8660, the modem, dsp, and sensors peripherals require their >>> firmware to be loaded into memory before they can be properly >>> taken out of reset. >>> >>> Drivers are expected to call pil_get() when they wish to load a >>> peripheral. This will initiate multiple firmware_request()s for >>> the metadata and image blobs for a peripheral. Once the image has >>> been loaded into memory, it is validated and brought out of reset >>> via the peripheral reset driver. >> >> Why can't this be part of the generic firmware request API ? > > Can you clarify what you mean by this? The firmware request API is used > to get the firmware itself, which this code uses. This code is what > manages making those calls for the various MSM peripherals that require > firmware. > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig >>> index 997c5bd..25b73b0 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig >>> @@ -210,4 +210,17 @@ config IOMMU_API >>> >>> config MSM_SCM >>> bool >>> + >>> +config MSM_PIL >>> + bool "Peripheral image loading (PIL)" >>> + select FW_LOADER >>> + select MSM_SCM >>> + depends on ARCH_MSM8X60 >>> + help >>> + Some peripherals need to be loaded into memory before they >>> can be >>> + brought out of reset. >>> + >>> + Say yes to support these devices. >>> + >>> + >> >> You shouldn't be adding anything like this to the Kconfig. To me if you >> add stuff like this it's a big red flag. > > Can you clarify what you mean "stuff like this". > > It seems to me that this option should be selected by the drivers that > need it, since it doesn't make sense to have this if there are no > drivers that need it, and it is required when those drivers are > included. > > I do think there are valid hardware configurations that don't have any > peripherals needing firmware, and would think that those should be able > to avoid requiring the code to manage that. Saravana/Stephen can > clarify that, though.
Correct. There are plenty of Qualcomm SoCs that don't need this driver. There are also valid 8660 configurations that would not need this.
Thanks, Saravana
-- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
| |