On 3/7/2024 3:51 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/02/2024 13:28, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
When llcc driver is enabled and llcc device is not
physically there on the SoC, client can get
-EPROBE_DEFER on calling llcc_slice_getd() and it
is possible they defer forever.
Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
process (neither too early nor over the limit):
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
Noted.
Let's add a check device availabilty and set the
appropriate applicable error in drv_data.
Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
index 4ca88eaebf06..cb336b183bba 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
@@ -769,6 +769,27 @@ static const struct qcom_sct_config x1e80100_cfgs = {
};
static struct llcc_drv_data *drv_data = (void *) -EPROBE_DEFER;
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(dev_avail);
+
+static bool is_llcc_device_available(void)
+{
+ static struct llcc_drv_data *ptr;
+
+ mutex_lock(&dev_avail);
+ if (!ptr) {
+ struct device_node *node;
+
+ node = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "system-cache-controller");
Why do you look names by name? This create undocumented ABI. >
NAK (also for any future uses of such of_find_node_by_name()).
I agree, what if we add a common compatible string like qcom,llcc to all
llcc supported SoCs.
-Mukesh
Best regards,
Krzysztof
