Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for the review. Will make all the suggested changes.
On 05/19/2018 01:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
re-enable them on remoteproc device start.
Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?
will split it into separate commits
Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
@@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
struct qcom_smem_state *state;
unsigned stop_bit;
+ unsigned int handover_interrupt;
+ unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
+ unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".
ok
+
struct clk *active_clks[8];
struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
int active_clk_count;
@@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
bool need_mem_protection;
+ bool unvoted_flag;
int mpss_perm;
int mba_perm;
int version;
@@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
int xfermemop_ret;
int ret;
+ qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
qproc->proxy_reg_count);
if (ret) {
@@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
if (ret)
goto reclaim_mpss;
+ enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+ enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+ enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
+
ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
if (ret == 0) {
+ disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+ disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+ disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
goto reclaim_mpss;
@@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
qproc->running = true;
- q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
- qproc->proxy_clk_count);
- q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
- qproc->proxy_reg_count);
-
return 0;
reclaim_mpss:
@@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
WARN_ON(ret);
reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
+ disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
+ if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
+ q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
+ qproc->proxy_clk_count);
+ q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
+ qproc->proxy_reg_count);
+ }
Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
places?
Will create two separate functions for enable/disable
+ disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
+ disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
resource disable.
Nope they can be grouped together.
+
q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
qproc->active_clk_count);
q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
[..]
@@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
qproc->version = desc->version;
qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
- ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
+ ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
+ &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
invalid irq number.
I'll inline the function.
+ if (ret < 0)
+ goto free_rproc;
+ disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?
yes just to keep things symmetric.
+
Regards,
Bjorn
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
