On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 04:03, Chris Lew <quic_clew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2024 2:28 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> > index 1d24c9b656a8..02d0c626b03b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c
> > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> > #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> > #include <linux/reset.h>
> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.h>
> > +#include <linux/soc/qcom/pd_mapper.h>
> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/smem.h>
> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/smem_state.h>
> >
> > @@ -375,10 +376,14 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> > int ret;
> > unsigned int val;
> >
> > - ret = qcom_q6v5_prepare(&adsp->q6v5);
> > + ret = qcom_pdm_get();
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
>
> Would it make sense to try and model this as a rproc subdev? This
> section of the remoteproc code seems to be focused on making specific
> calls to setup and enable hardware resources, where as pd mapper is
> software.
>
> sysmon and ssr are also purely software and they are modeled as subdevs
> in qcom_common. I'm not an expert on remoteproc organization but this
> was just a thought.
Well, the issue is that the pd-mapper is a global, not a per-remoteproc instance
>
> Thanks!
> Chris
>
> >
> > + ret = qcom_q6v5_prepare(&adsp->q6v5);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto put_pdm;
> > +
> > ret = adsp_map_carveout(rproc);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(adsp->dev, "ADSP smmu mapping failed\n");
> > @@ -446,6 +451,8 @@ static int adsp_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> > adsp_unmap_carveout(rproc);
> > disable_irqs:
> > qcom_q6v5_unprepare(&adsp->q6v5);
> > +put_pdm:
> > + qcom_pdm_release();
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
