Hi Mathieu
On 07/09/22 00:59, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Good day,
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 02:41:27PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> On 19/07/22 21:46, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:26:50AM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
>>>> From: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Client device node property ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel can now be used to
>>>> configure the GPMUX config value for PRU.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx>
>>>> [s-anna@xxxxxx: simplify the pru id usage]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> V4->v5
>>>> * This patch was included in v4 and had some checkpatch errors that have
>>>> been resolved in v5
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
>>>> index 2977eb50631b..f2c6c55f0f20 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
>>>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ struct pru_private_data {
>>>> * @dbg_single_step: debug state variable to set PRU into single step mode
>>>> * @dbg_continuous: debug state variable to restore PRU execution mode
>>>> * @evt_count: number of mapped events
>>>> + * @gpmux_save: saved value for gpmux config
>>>> */
>>>> struct pru_rproc {
>>>> int id;
>>>> @@ -141,6 +142,7 @@ struct pru_rproc {
>>>> u32 dbg_single_step;
>>>> u32 dbg_continuous;
>>>> u8 evt_count;
>>>> + u8 gpmux_save;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static inline u32 pru_control_read_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg)
>>>> @@ -250,6 +252,7 @@ struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index,
>>>> struct device *dev;
>>>> const char *fw_name;
>>>> int ret;
>>>> + u32 mux;
>>>>
>>>> try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -273,6 +276,22 @@ struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index,
>>>>
>>>> mutex_unlock(&pru->lock);
>>>>
>>>> + ret = pruss_cfg_get_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, &pru->gpmux_save);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get cfg gpmux: %d\n", ret);
>>>> + goto err;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel", index,
>>>> + &mux);
>>>> + if (!ret) {
>>>> + ret = pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, mux);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to set cfg gpmux: %d\n", ret);
>>>> + goto err;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> if (pru_id)
>>>> *pru_id = pru->id;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -310,6 +329,7 @@ void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc)
>>>>
>>>> pru = rproc->priv;
>>>>
>>>> + pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, pru->gpmux_save);
>>>> pru_rproc_set_firmware(rproc, NULL);
>>>>
>>>
>>> CC drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.o
>>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c: In function ‘pru_rproc_get’:
>>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c:279:8: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pruss_cfg_get_gpmux’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> 279 | ret = pruss_cfg_get_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, &pru->gpmux_save);
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c:288:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pruss_cfg_set_gpmux’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>> 288 | ret = pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, mux);
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> I get this on both rproc-next and today's linux next.
>>
>> This patch is dependent on the series [2] Introduce PRU platform consumer API
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/cover/20220406094358.7895-1-p-mohan@xxxxxx/
>> as the api pruss_cfg_get_gpmux calls the api pruss_cfg_read and the api
>> pruss_cfg_set_gpmux calls the api pruss_cfg_update which are implemented by the
>> patch "soc: ti: pruss: Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API" in the above series.
>>
>
> What I read from the cover letter is that the series you are referring to was an
> RFC that predated this series. Also from the cover letter, the second paragraph
> clearly indicate that two other series _depend_ on this series. As such there
> was no way for me to identify the dependency.
>
>> This error is coming as the dependent patch needs the patch "soc: ti: pruss:
>> Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API" to be applied for compilation.
>
> Please provide a link when referencing patchsets. That way we know exactly
> which one we are talking about.
>
Sure, the current patch is dependent on the patch [PATCH v2 3/6] soc: ti:
pruss: Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220418123004.9332-4-p-mohan@xxxxxx/
Thanks,
Danish.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Danish.
>>
>>>
>>>> mutex_lock(&pru->lock);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.17.1
>>>>
