On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 03:53:09PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > On 20/09/22 02:15, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 05:40, Md Danish Anwar <a0501179@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mathieu, > >> > >> On 12/09/22 18:54, Romain Naour wrote: > >>> Hi Danish, All, > >>> > >>> Le 07/09/2022 à 11:24, Md Danish Anwar a écrit : > >>>> Hi Mathieu, > >>>> > >>>> On 07/09/22 00:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:09:04PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Mathieu, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 15/07/22 11:52, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>>>>>> +Danish > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Mathieu, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 14/07/22 22:50, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi Puranjay, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Removed Puranjay (as he is no longer with TI) and adding Danish. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Kishon > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:26:46AM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> From: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Add two new APIs, pru_rproc_get() and pru_rproc_put(), to the PRU > >>>>>>>>>> driver to allow client drivers to acquire and release the remoteproc > >>>>>>>>>> device associated with a PRU core. The PRU cores are treated as > >>>>>>>>>> resources with only one client owning it at a time. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The pru_rproc_get() function returns the rproc handle corresponding > >>>>>>>>>> to a PRU core identified by the device tree "ti,prus" property under > >>>>>>>>>> the client node. The pru_rproc_put() is the complementary function > >>>>>>>>>> to pru_rproc_get(). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >>>>>>>>>> include/linux/pruss.h | 56 +++++++++++++ > >>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c > >>>>>>>>>> index 1777a01fa84e..7a35b400287a 100644 > >>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c > >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -2,12 +2,13 @@ > >>>>>>>>>> /* > >>>>>>>>>> * PRU-ICSS remoteproc driver for various TI SoCs > >>>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>>> - * Copyright (C) 2014-2020 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/ > >>>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014-2022 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/ > >>>>>>>>>> * > >>>>>>>>>> * Author(s): > >>>>>>>>>> * Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> * Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> * Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx> for Texas Instruments > >>>>>>>>>> + * Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> */ > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/bitops.h> > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -16,6 +17,7 @@ > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/module.h> > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/of_device.h> > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h> > >>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/pruss.h> > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/pruss_driver.h> > >>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/remoteproc.h> > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -111,6 +113,8 @@ struct pru_private_data { > >>>>>>>>>> * @rproc: remoteproc pointer for this PRU core > >>>>>>>>>> * @data: PRU core specific data > >>>>>>>>>> * @mem_regions: data for each of the PRU memory regions > >>>>>>>>>> + * @client_np: client device node > >>>>>>>>>> + * @lock: mutex to protect client usage > >>>>>>>>>> * @fw_name: name of firmware image used during loading > >>>>>>>>>> * @mapped_irq: virtual interrupt numbers of created fw specific mapping > >>>>>>>>>> * @pru_interrupt_map: pointer to interrupt mapping description (firmware) > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -126,6 +130,8 @@ struct pru_rproc { > >>>>>>>>>> struct rproc *rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> const struct pru_private_data *data; > >>>>>>>>>> struct pruss_mem_region mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_MAX]; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct device_node *client_np; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct mutex lock; /* client access lock */ > >>>>>>>>>> const char *fw_name; > >>>>>>>>>> unsigned int *mapped_irq; > >>>>>>>>>> struct pru_irq_rsc *pru_interrupt_map; > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -146,6 +152,125 @@ void pru_control_write_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg, u32 val) > >>>>>>>>>> writel_relaxed(val, pru->mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_CTRL].va + reg); > >>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>> +static struct rproc *__pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index) > >>>>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>>>> + struct device_node *rproc_np = NULL; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *pdev; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct rproc *rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + rproc_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "ti,prus", index); > >>>>>>>>>> + if (!rproc_np || !of_device_is_available(rproc_np)) > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(rproc_np); > >>>>>>>>>> + of_node_put(rproc_np); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pdev || !(&pdev->dev) || !((&pdev->dev)->driver)) > >>>>>>>>>> + /* probably PRU not yet probed */ > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + /* make sure it is PRU rproc */ > >>>>>>>>>> + if (!is_pru_rproc(&pdev->dev)) { > >>>>>>>>>> + put_device(&pdev->dev); > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > >>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + rproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > >>>>>>>>>> + put_device(&pdev->dev); > >>>>>>>>>> + if (!rproc) > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + get_device(&rproc->dev); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + return rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +/** > >>>>>>>>>> + * pru_rproc_get() - get the PRU rproc instance from a device node > >>>>>>>>>> + * @np: the user/client device node > >>>>>>>>>> + * @index: index to use for the ti,prus property > >>>>>>>>>> + * @pru_id: optional pointer to return the PRU remoteproc processor id > >>>>>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>>>>> + * This function looks through a client device node's "ti,prus" property at > >>>>>>>>>> + * index @index and returns the rproc handle for a valid PRU remote processor if > >>>>>>>>>> + * found. The function allows only one user to own the PRU rproc resource at a > >>>>>>>>>> + * time. Caller must call pru_rproc_put() when done with using the rproc, not > >>>>>>>>>> + * required if the function returns a failure. > >>>>>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>>>>> + * When optional @pru_id pointer is passed the PRU remoteproc processor id is > >>>>>>>>>> + * returned. > >>>>>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>>>>> + * Return: rproc handle on success, and an ERR_PTR on failure using one > >>>>>>>>>> + * of the following error values > >>>>>>>>>> + * -ENODEV if device is not found > >>>>>>>>>> + * -EBUSY if PRU is already acquired by anyone > >>>>>>>>>> + * -EPROBE_DEFER is PRU device is not probed yet > >>>>>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>>>>> +struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, > >>>>>>>>>> + enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id) > >>>>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>>>> + struct rproc *rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct pru_rproc *pru; > >>>>>>>>>> + struct device *dev; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + try_module_get(THIS_MODULE); > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There should be a module_put() in pru_rproc_put()... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ... and in the error path of this function. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> More comments to come tomorrow. I'm especially worried about this API racing > >>>>>>>>> with a remote processor being removed or detached. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Looking at what is done in wkup_m3_ipc_probe(), it should be possible to call > >>>>>>>> rproc_get_by_handle() here and that would make sure the remote processor doesn't > >>>>>>>> go away before the end of the function. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> More comments to come... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is possible to call rproc_get_by_handle() here instead of > >>>>>> __pru_get_proc(), but that would not provide multiple functionality. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The API rproc_get_by_handle() returns rproc handle on success, and NULL on > >>>>>> failure where as __pru_get_proc() returns ERR_PTR on failure which provides > >>>>>> multiple functionality and opportunity for us to distinguish between > >>>>>> multiple errors. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So we have these three options. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. If we're using the API rproc_get_by_handle() and we want the multiple > >>>>>> ERR_PTR on failure then we will need to change the API rproc_get_by_handle() > >>>>>> and also all the functions that uses rproc_get_by_handle(). > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Not optimal. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2. Keep the API rproc_get_by_handle() as it is. That will restrict us from > >>>>>> using multiple ERR_PTR on different kinds of error. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Not optimal. > >>>>> > >>>>>> 3. Instead of using rproc_get_by_handle(), keep using __pru_get_proc(). This > >>>>>> will make sure we have the proper ERR_PTR to retrun for different kinds of > >>>>>> errors. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Unacceptable for the reason I already stated. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Please let me know which option to continue with. > >>>>> > >>>>> I suggest building a wrapper that does everything you want around rproc_get_by_phandle(). > >> > >> We can introduce a new API __rproc_get_by_phandle() similar to the API > >> rproc_get_by_phandle(). The new API __rproc_get_by_phandle() will do all the > >> functionality of getting the rproc. On success it will return rproc and on > >> failure it will return the different ERR_PTR. > >> If rproc is not probed yet, it will return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER). > >> > >> This will make sure that we're getting different error codes for different > >> errors from pru_rproc_get(). > >> > >> The old API rproc_get_by_handle() will invoke the new API. On success the new > >> API will return rproc and the old API will also return rproc. On failure the > >> new API will return different error codes while the old API will preserve it's > >> nature and return NULL. > > > > I meant to create a wrapper around rproc_get_by_handle() that is local > > to pru_rproc.c. That way you can enact the behavior you want without > > having to constrain others in this specific design. > > > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > > As The API rproc_get_by_phandle() returns null on failure, I am not able to > create a wrapper around this API, which is local to pru_rproc.c to enact the > different behaviors that I want. As the API is only returning null on failure > but pru_rproc_get needs different error codes for different failures. We can > create a wrapper but that won't be able to provide different error codes that > we want in pru_rproc_get(). I took a closer look at __pru_rproc_get()... Calling of_property_read_u32_index() instead of of_parse_phandle() should do the primary sanetary check. After that call rproc_get_by_phandle() and return EPROBE_DEFER if it returns NULL. If not then you have an rproc with a platform device that you can check with is_pru_rproc() and return whatever error code you want if it isn't to your liking. > > This is why I am suggesting to introduce new API [__rproc_get_by_phandle()] > similar to rproc_get_by_handle(). The new API can return different error codes > on different error. While the older API [rproc_get_by_handle()] will call the > new API and on failure on new API the older API will just return null > irrespective of the error code returned by the new API. Thus preserving it's > original design. > > This way we can enact the behavior that we want by calling the new API while > the other APIs dependent on the older API, can still call > rproc_get_by_phandle() without any change to the existing design. > > We can have a little discussion to discuss this further on some IRC channel or > meeting if it's possible. > > Thanks, > Danish > > > >> > >> The API __rproc_get_by_handle will look like this. > >> > >> struct rproc *__rproc_get_by_handle(phandle phandle) > >> { > >> struct rproc *rproc = NULL, *r; > >> struct device_node *np; > >> > >> np = of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle); > >> if (!np) > >> return NULL; > >> > >> rcu_read_lock(); > >> list_for_each_entry_rcu(r, &rproc_list, node) { > >> if (r->dev.parent && r->dev.parent->of_node == np) { > >> /*prevent underlying implementation from being removed */ > >> if (!try_module_get(r->dev.parent->driver->owner)) { > >> dev_err(&r->dev, "can't get owner\n"); > >> break; > >> } > >> > >> rproc = r; > >> get_device(&rproc->dev); > >> break; > >> } > >> } > >> rcu_read_unlock(); > >> > >> of_node_put(np); > >> > >> if(!rproc) > >> return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER); > >> > >> return rproc; > >> } > >> > >> The API rproc_get_by_handle() will look like this. > >> > >> struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle) > >> { > >> struct rproc *rproc = NULL; > >> > >> rproc = __rproc_get_by_handle(phandle); > >> > >> if(!rproc || IS_ERR(rproc)) > >> return NULL; > >> > >> return rproc; > >> } > >> > >> This way in pru_rproc_get(), we'll get the rproc by phandle and we'll still > >> return different error codes depending upon failure cases. We'll also be able > >> to preserve the actual functionality of rproc_get_by_phandle() so that the > >> other APIs using rproc_get_by_phandle() won't get affected. > >> > >> Please let me know if this looks good. > >> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sure, I'll do that. I'll share this change in v6 of this patch series. > >>> > >>> I'm able to test the TI prueth driver from the ti-linux-5.10.y tree [1] on a > >>> AM5749 cpu (custom board). But I need a more recent kernel (at least 5.15) to > >>> support other devices recently added to the Linux kernel (wifi6 module and an > >>> ethernet switch). Also it would be nice if this driver is finally merged in the > >>> Linux kernel. > >>> > >>> Maybe I can help to test this series but I noticed it only provide the driver > >>> for TI AM654x cpus [2]. Can you also provide patches for basic EMAC support with > >>> the TI AM574x too? (I don't need advanced features like frame timestamping, HSR > >>> etc). > >>> > >>> Also, what about patches present in the ti-linux-kernel tree and not included > >>> this this series? Especially patches that modify the kernel network stack [3] > >>> (net/rpmsg: add support for new rpmsg sockets). Is this new socket protocol > >>> really needed? > >>> > >>> Notice the patch adding the rpmsg sockets [3] already conflict with the upstream > >>> kernel since the AF_MCTP definition now use the value temporarly used by > >>> AF_RPMSG [4]. > >>> > >>> Can you send an updated version of the complete series? > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> [1] https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel/log/?h=ti-linux-5.10.y > >>> > >>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20220406094358.7895-1-p-mohan@xxxxxx/ > >>> > >>> [3] > >>> https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel/commit/?h=ti-linux-5.10.y&id=f4b978a978c38149f712ddd137f12ed5fb914161 > >>> > >>> [4] > >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=bc49d8169aa72295104f1558830c568efb946315 > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Romain > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Danish > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>> Mathieu > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + rproc = __pru_rproc_get(np, index); > >>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(rproc)) > >>>>>>>>>> + return rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + pru = rproc->priv; > >>>>>>>>>> + dev = &rproc->dev; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (pru->client_np) { > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + put_device(dev); > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY); > >>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = np; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (pru_id) > >>>>>>>>>> + *pru_id = pru->id; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + return rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pru_rproc_get); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +/** > >>>>>>>>>> + * pru_rproc_put() - release the PRU rproc resource > >>>>>>>>>> + * @rproc: the rproc resource to release > >>>>>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>>>>> + * Releases the PRU rproc resource and makes it available to other > >>>>>>>>>> + * users. > >>>>>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>>>>> +void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc) > >>>>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>>>> + struct pru_rproc *pru; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rproc) || !is_pru_rproc(rproc->dev.parent)) > >>>>>>>>>> + return; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + pru = rproc->priv; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (!pru->client_np) { > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + return; > >>>>>>>>>> + } > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = NULL; > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + put_device(&rproc->dev); > >>>>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pru_rproc_put); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> static inline u32 pru_debug_read_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg) > >>>>>>>>>> { > >>>>>>>>>> return readl_relaxed(pru->mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_DEBUG].va + reg); > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -438,7 +563,7 @@ static void *pru_d_da_to_va(struct pru_rproc *pru, u32 da, size_t len) > >>>>>>>>>> dram0 = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_DRAM0]; > >>>>>>>>>> dram1 = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_DRAM1]; > >>>>>>>>>> /* PRU1 has its local RAM addresses reversed */ > >>>>>>>>>> - if (pru->id == 1) > >>>>>>>>>> + if (pru->id == PRUSS_PRU1) > >>>>>>>>>> swap(dram0, dram1); > >>>>>>>>>> shrd_ram = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_SHRD_RAM2]; > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -747,14 +872,14 @@ static int pru_rproc_set_id(struct pru_rproc *pru) > >>>>>>>>>> case RTU0_IRAM_ADDR_MASK: > >>>>>>>>>> fallthrough; > >>>>>>>>>> case PRU0_IRAM_ADDR_MASK: > >>>>>>>>>> - pru->id = 0; > >>>>>>>>>> + pru->id = PRUSS_PRU0; > >>>>>>>>>> break; > >>>>>>>>>> case TX_PRU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK: > >>>>>>>>>> fallthrough; > >>>>>>>>>> case RTU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK: > >>>>>>>>>> fallthrough; > >>>>>>>>>> case PRU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK: > >>>>>>>>>> - pru->id = 1; > >>>>>>>>>> + pru->id = PRUSS_PRU1; > >>>>>>>>>> break; > >>>>>>>>>> default: > >>>>>>>>>> ret = -EINVAL; > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -816,6 +941,8 @@ static int pru_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>>>>>>>> pru->pruss = platform_get_drvdata(ppdev); > >>>>>>>>>> pru->rproc = rproc; > >>>>>>>>>> pru->fw_name = fw_name; > >>>>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = NULL; > >>>>>>>>>> + mutex_init(&pru->lock); > >>>>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mem_names); i++) { > >>>>>>>>>> res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -903,7 +1030,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pru_rproc_match); > >>>>>>>>>> static struct platform_driver pru_rproc_driver = { > >>>>>>>>>> .driver = { > >>>>>>>>>> - .name = "pru-rproc", > >>>>>>>>>> + .name = PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME, > >>>>>>>>>> .of_match_table = pru_rproc_match, > >>>>>>>>>> .suppress_bind_attrs = true, > >>>>>>>>>> }, > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -915,5 +1042,6 @@ module_platform_driver(pru_rproc_driver); > >>>>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx>"); > >>>>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Andrew F. Davis <afd@xxxxxx>"); > >>>>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk@xxxxxxxxxx>"); > >>>>>>>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx>"); > >>>>>>>>>> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PRU-ICSS Remote Processor Driver"); > >>>>>>>>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2"); > >>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pruss.h b/include/linux/pruss.h > >>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 > >>>>>>>>>> index 000000000000..fdc719b43db0 > >>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null > >>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pruss.h > >>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ > >>>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */ > >>>>>>>>>> +/** > >>>>>>>>>> + * PRU-ICSS Subsystem user interfaces > >>>>>>>>>> + * > >>>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2022 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com > >>>>>>>>>> + * Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> > >>>>>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef __LINUX_PRUSS_H > >>>>>>>>>> +#define __LINUX_PRUSS_H > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/device.h> > >>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h> > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#define PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME "pru-rproc" > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +/* > >>>>>>>>>> + * enum pruss_pru_id - PRU core identifiers > >>>>>>>>>> + */ > >>>>>>>>>> +enum pruss_pru_id { > >>>>>>>>>> + PRUSS_PRU0 = 0, > >>>>>>>>>> + PRUSS_PRU1, > >>>>>>>>>> + PRUSS_NUM_PRUS, > >>>>>>>>>> +}; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +struct device_node; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PRU_REMOTEPROC) > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, > >>>>>>>>>> + enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id); > >>>>>>>>>> +void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#else > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +static inline struct rproc * > >>>>>>>>>> +pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id) > >>>>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP); > >>>>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +static inline void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc) { } > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PRU_REMOTEPROC */ > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +static inline bool is_pru_rproc(struct device *dev) > >>>>>>>>>> +{ > >>>>>>>>>> + const char *drv_name = dev_driver_string(dev); > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + if (strncmp(drv_name, PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME, sizeof(PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME))) > >>>>>>>>>> + return false; > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> + return true; > >>>>>>>>>> +} > >>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>> +#endif /* __LINUX_PRUSS_H */ > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> 2.17.1 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>
