Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] remoteproc/keystone: Add a remoteproc driver for Keystone 2 DSPs

[Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>]

On Mon 26 Jun 08:54 PDT 2017, Suman Anna wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 06/25/2017 03:15 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 13 Jun 16:45 PDT 2017, Suman Anna wrote:
> > 
> >> +static int keystone_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct keystone_rproc *ksproc = rproc->priv;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	INIT_WORK(&ksproc->workqueue, handle_event);
> >> +
> >> +	ret = request_irq(ksproc->irq_ring, keystone_rproc_vring_interrupt, 0,
> >> +			  dev_name(ksproc->dev), ksproc);
> >> +	if (ret) {
> >> +		dev_err(ksproc->dev, "failed to enable vring interrupt, ret = %d\n",
> >> +			ret);
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	ret = request_irq(ksproc->irq_fault, keystone_rproc_exception_interrupt,
> >> +			  0, dev_name(ksproc->dev), ksproc);
> >> +	if (ret) {
> >> +		dev_err(ksproc->dev, "failed to enable exception interrupt, ret = %d\n",
> >> +			ret);
> >> +		goto free_vring_irq;
> >> +	}
> > 
> > I do prefer that your request any resources during probe() and
> > potentially enable/disable them here. If below concern about using a
> > GPIO driver is cleared already I'll take it as is though.
> > 
> > [..]
> >> +static void keystone_rproc_kick(struct rproc *rproc, int vqid)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct keystone_rproc *ksproc = rproc->priv;
> >> +
> >> +	if (WARN_ON(ksproc->kick_gpio < 0))
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >> +	gpio_set_value(ksproc->kick_gpio, 1);
> >> +}
> >> +
> > 
> > This doesn't sound like a gpio-controller and the GPIO maintainer did
> > reject an attempt by me to use the GPIO framework to abstract a similar
> > thing. Do you already have this driver upstream or have you clarified
> > with the maintainer that the GPIO framework is an acceptable abstraction
> > for this?
> 
> Yeah, this has been upstream since quite some time. See commit
> 2134cb997f2f ("gpio: syscon: reuse for keystone 2 socs").
> 

Okay, sounds good. I have merged the series.


I still would like to have resources allocated at probe() time, so I
would appreciate a follow up patch moving the request_irq()s to probe,
per above comment (but we can take that after v4.13).

Regards,
Bjorn