Messages in this thread | | | From | Leonard Crestez <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: imx: Skip return value check for some special SCU firmware APIs | Date | Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:13:02 +0000 |
| |
On 25.09.2019 13:09, 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. > > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@nxp.com> > --- > - This patch is based on the patch of https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.kernel.org%2Fpatch%2F11129553%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cleonard.crestez%40nxp.com%7Cc0ced6cd07f04023977008d741a07367%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637050029712216472&sdata=Ccq%2Fb2RJdMqmnL7VXrl8YhOlUwC7bWiUG%2BNmiw4OsSM%3D&reserved=0 > --- > drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c b/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > index 869be7a..ced5b12 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > @@ -78,6 +78,11 @@ static int imx_sc_linux_errmap[IMX_SC_ERR_LAST] = { > -EIO, /* IMX_SC_ERR_FAIL */ > }; > > +static const struct imx_sc_rpc_msg whitelist[] = { > + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func = IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_UNIQUE_ID }, > + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func = IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_GET_BUTTON_STATUS }, > +};
Until now this low level IPC code didn't treat any svc/func specially and this seems good.
The imx_scu_call_rpc function already has an have_resp argument and callers are responsible to fill it. Can't we deal with this by adding an additional err_ret flag passed by the caller?
We can add wrapper functions to avoid tree-wide changes for all callers.
> + > static struct imx_sc_ipc *imx_sc_ipc_handle; > > static inline int imx_sc_to_linux_errno(int errno) > @@ -157,11 +162,24 @@ static int imx_scu_ipc_write(struct imx_sc_ipc *sc_ipc, void *msg) > return 0; > } > > +static bool imx_scu_call_skip_return_value_check(uint8_t svc, uint8_t func) > +{ > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(whitelist); i++) > + if (svc == whitelist[i].svc && > + func == whitelist[i].func) > + return true; > + > + return false; > +} > + > /* > * RPC command/response > */ > int imx_scu_call_rpc(struct imx_sc_ipc *sc_ipc, void *msg, bool have_resp) > { > + uint8_t saved_svc, saved_func; > struct imx_sc_rpc_msg *hdr; > int ret; > > @@ -171,8 +189,11 @@ int imx_scu_call_rpc(struct imx_sc_ipc *sc_ipc, void *msg, bool have_resp) > mutex_lock(&sc_ipc->lock); > reinit_completion(&sc_ipc->done); > > - if (have_resp) > + if (have_resp) { > sc_ipc->msg = msg; > + saved_svc = ((struct imx_sc_rpc_msg *)msg)->svc; > + saved_func = ((struct imx_sc_rpc_msg *)msg)->func; > + } > sc_ipc->count = 0; > ret = imx_scu_ipc_write(sc_ipc, msg); > if (ret < 0) { > @@ -190,7 +211,16 @@ int imx_scu_call_rpc(struct imx_sc_ipc *sc_ipc, void *msg, bool have_resp) > > /* response status is stored in hdr->func field */ > hdr = msg; > - ret = hdr->func; > + /* > + * Some special SCU firmware APIs do NOT have return value > + * in hdr->func, but they do have response data, those special > + * APIs are defined as void function in SCU firmware, so they > + * should be treated as return success always. > + */ > + if (!imx_scu_call_skip_return_value_check(saved_svc, saved_func)) > + ret = hdr->func; > + else > + ret = 0; > } > > out: >
| |