From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E63C432BE for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F19F60ED7 for ; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 22:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232879AbhGWVXu (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:23:50 -0400 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:46776 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232401AbhGWVXt (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:23:49 -0400 Received: from fllv0035.itg.ti.com ([10.64.41.0]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 16NM4JDH057161; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:04:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1627077859; bh=ZybSNZX/9JAUhBg+wT2kJcY3NWdaER9Mhvfy0Uumon8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=NaTxqbXlxAJPPNJQkTJC2m8FSWalmnkrjk5eyfp30uJFohFH6bMQtO0UtQl6IJ7mt ua3jI7BDR/h79wmUevMMumVzfPVhpne0HmUSSl3P/CyqGJVkelPRJip/XrWqyUp1NK 2WI/3IYoQosbSZ0UTKiDj3Ki9X0wZYU6EGUiWAsY= Received: from DFLE114.ent.ti.com (dfle114.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.35]) by fllv0035.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 16NM4Jua067186 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:04:19 -0500 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE114.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:50 -0500 Received: from lelv0327.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.183) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:50 -0500 Received: from fllv0103.dal.design.ti.com (fllv0103.dal.design.ti.com [10.247.120.73]) by lelv0327.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 16NM2o6t112954; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:50 -0500 Received: from localhost ([10.250.38.176]) by fllv0103.dal.design.ti.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 16NM2o4N126731; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:50 -0500 From: Suman Anna To: Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier CC: Lokesh Vutla , Praneeth Bajjuri , Hari Nagalla , , , , Suman Anna Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in start Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20210723220248.6554-3-s-anna@ti.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0 In-Reply-To: <20210723220248.6554-1-s-anna@ti.com> References: <20210723220248.6554-1-s-anna@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Refactor out the mailbox request and associated ping logic code from k3_r5_rproc_start() function into its own separate function so that it can be re-used in the soon to be added .attach() ops callback. Signed-off-by: Suman Anna Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier --- v2: No code changes, picked up Reviewed-by tags v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20210522000309.26134-4-s-anna@ti.com/ drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 66 ++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c index 71615210df3e..03f930758b2d 100644 --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c @@ -376,6 +376,44 @@ static inline int k3_r5_core_run(struct k3_r5_core *core) 0, PROC_BOOT_CTRL_FLAG_R5_CORE_HALT); } +static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc) +{ + struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; + struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client; + struct device *dev = kproc->dev; + int ret; + + client->dev = dev; + client->tx_done = NULL; + client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback; + client->tx_block = false; + client->knows_txdone = false; + + kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0); + if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) { + ret = -EBUSY; + dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", + PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox)); + return ret; + } + + /* + * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now; + * there is no functional effect whatsoever. + * + * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message + * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted. + */ + ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST); + if (ret < 0) { + dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret); + mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox); + return ret; + } + + return 0; +} + /* * The R5F cores have controls for both a reset and a halt/run. The code * execution from DDR requires the initial boot-strapping code to be run @@ -495,38 +533,14 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc) { struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv; struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster; - struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client; struct device *dev = kproc->dev; struct k3_r5_core *core; u32 boot_addr; int ret; - client->dev = dev; - client->tx_done = NULL; - client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback; - client->tx_block = false; - client->knows_txdone = false; - - kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0); - if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) { - ret = -EBUSY; - dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n", - PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox)); + ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc); + if (ret) return ret; - } - - /* - * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now; - * there is no functional effect whatsoever. - * - * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message - * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted. - */ - ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST); - if (ret < 0) { - dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret); - goto put_mbox; - } boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr; /* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */ -- 2.32.0