lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv7 06/15] remoteproc/omap: Initialize and assign reserved memory node
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:19:27PM +0200, Tero Kristo wrote:
> From: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>
> The reserved memory nodes are not assigned to platform devices by
> default in the driver core to avoid the lookup for every platform
> device and incur a penalty as the real users are expected to be
> only a few devices.
>
> OMAP remoteproc devices fall into the above category and the OMAP
> remoteproc driver _requires_ specific CMA pools to be assigned
> for each device at the moment to align on the location of the
> vrings and vring buffers in the RTOS-side firmware images. So,
> use the of_reserved_mem_device_init/release() API appropriately
> to assign the corresponding reserved memory region to the OMAP
> remoteproc device. Note that only one region per device is
> allowed by the framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> index 89084dd919ba..872cd0df342b 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/omap_remoteproc.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_reserved_mem.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> @@ -483,14 +484,23 @@ static int omap_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (ret)
> goto free_rproc;
>
> + ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init(&pdev->dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "device does not have specific CMA pool.\n");
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Typically this should be provided,\n");
> + dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "only omit if you know what you are doing.\n");
> + }


I suppose that if no reserved memory has been specified things will go south
pretty quickly. I'm fine with the first line being a dev_warn() but would
devinitely move the next two to dev_info().

Since Bjorn has already agreed to this, with or without the above:

Acked-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>

> +
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, rproc);
>
> ret = rproc_add(rproc);
> if (ret)
> - goto free_rproc;
> + goto release_mem;
>
> return 0;
>
> +release_mem:
> + of_reserved_mem_device_release(&pdev->dev);
> free_rproc:
> rproc_free(rproc);
> return ret;
> @@ -502,6 +512,7 @@ static int omap_rproc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> rproc_del(rproc);
> rproc_free(rproc);
> + of_reserved_mem_device_release(&pdev->dev);
>
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
> --
> Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-04 18:43    [W:0.322 / U:2.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site