Re: [PATCH 5/5] remoteproc: Modifying probe for initializing q6v55 specific resources

From: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@codeaurora.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	spjoshi@codeaurora.org, kaushalk@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] remoteproc: Modifying probe for initializing q6v55 specific resources
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:17:31 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <35a6fef2-8340-b438-ec0f-4b410953ac96@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161025193554.GQ7509@tuxbot>


On 10/26/2016 1:05 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon 24 Oct 08:55 PDT 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>
>> Probe is being modified to save q6 version and invoke appropriate
>> init functions to accommodate q6v55 remoteproc driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> index dd19d41..c65c904 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> @@ -1370,6 +1370,9 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	init_completion(&qproc->start_done);
>>   	init_completion(&qproc->stop_done);
>>   
>> +	if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,q6v55-pil"))
>> +		qproc->is_q6v55 = true;
>> +
> With the changes I've suggested in the other patches I would recommend
> that you describe the differences as a set of "features" in a struct
> that you put as .data in the match table and then use
> of_device_get_match_data() to acquire the matching data struct.
OK, have tried on suggested line in patchset v2 to be send out soon.
>
>>   	ret = q6v5_init_mem(qproc, pdev);
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		goto free_rproc;
>> @@ -1378,17 +1381,39 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		goto free_rproc;
>>   
>> -	ret = q6v5_init_clocks(qproc);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		goto free_rproc;
>> +	if (qproc->is_q6v55) {
>> +		ret = q6v55_init_clocks(qproc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = q6v5_init_clocks(qproc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	}
> Based on the fact that I don't think this is a q6v55, but rather a q6v6,
> we will now end up with:
>
> if (is_q6v55) {
> } else if (is_q6v6) {
> } else if (is_q6v5) {
> } else {
> 	fail
> };
>
> And this function will turn into an (even worse) mess.
>
>
> I would suggest that you instead define each resource as a flag and
> provide a struct with these flags as .data with the compatible. Then
> pass that to the clock and regulator init and based on the flags they
> can acquire the individual resources. That way adding a new version is a
> matter of listing which resources that needs to grab.
>
> And in that struct you can also have a function pointer to an
> appropriate reset function, completely removing the need for checking
> which version we have after initialization.
Agreed
>
>>   
>> -	ret = q6v5_regulator_init(qproc);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		goto free_rproc;
>> +	if (qproc->is_q6v55) {
>> +		ret = q6v55_init_reset(qproc, pdev);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = q6v5_init_reset(qproc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	}
>>   
>> -	ret = q6v5_init_reset(qproc);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		goto free_rproc;
>> +	if (qproc->is_q6v55) {
>> +		ret = q6v55_regulator_init(qproc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	} else {
>> +		ret = q6v5_regulator_init(qproc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto free_rproc;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	qproc->ahb_clk_vote = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node,
>> +			"qcom,ahb-clk-vote");
>> +	mutex_init(&qproc->q6_lock);
>>   
>>   	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
>>   	if (ret < 0)
> Regards,
> Bjorn