Hi,
On 5/31/2018 3:20 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Raju P L S S S N
<rplsssn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
#define DEFINE_RPMH_MSG_ONSTACK(dev, s, q, name) \
struct rpmh_request name = { \
@@ -35,6 +37,7 @@
.completion = q, \
.dev = dev, \
.needs_free = false, \
+ .wait_count = NULL, \
You ignored my feedback on v8 that wait_count is not useful. Please
squash in <http://crosreview.com/1079905>. That also has a fix where
it introduces a WARN_ON for the timeout case in batch mode too.
Oh. Sorry.. I missed it. Thanks for pointing out. Will take up in next spin
+/**
+ * rpmh_write_batch: Write multiple sets of RPMH commands and wait for the
+ * batch to finish.
+ *
+ * @dev: the device making the request
+ * @state: Active/sleep set
+ * @cmd: The payload data
+ * @n: The array of count of elements in each batch, 0 terminated.
+ *
+ * Write a request to the RSC controller without caching. If the request
+ * state is ACTIVE, then the requests are treated as completion request
+ * and sent to the controller immediately. The function waits until all the
+ * commands are complete. If the request was to SLEEP or WAKE_ONLY, then the
+ * request is sent as fire-n-forget and no ack is expected.
+ *
+ * May sleep. Do not call from atomic contexts for ACTIVE_ONLY requests.
+ */
+int rpmh_write_batch(const struct device *dev, enum rpmh_state state,
+ const struct tcs_cmd *cmd, u32 *n)
+{
+ struct rpmh_request *rpm_msg[RPMH_MAX_REQ_IN_BATCH] = { NULL };
+ DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(compl);
+ atomic_t wait_count = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
+ struct rpmh_ctrlr *ctrlr = get_rpmh_ctrlr(dev);
+ int count = 0;
+ int ret, i, j;
+
+ if (IS_ERR(ctrlr) || !cmd || !n)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ while (n[count++] > 0)
+ ;
+ count--;
+ if (!count || count > RPMH_MAX_REQ_IN_BATCH)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ rpm_msg[i] = __get_rpmh_msg_async(state, cmd, n[i]);
+ if (IS_ERR(rpm_msg[i])) {
+ ret = PTR_ERR(rpm_msg[i]);
+ for (j = i-1; j >= 0; j--) {
+ if (rpm_msg[j]->needs_free)
How could needs_free be false here?
Yes. Just an additional check. Can be omitted. Will do it in next spin.
+ kfree(rpm_msg[j]);
+ }
+ return ret;
+ }
+ cmd += n[i];
+ }
+
+ if (state != RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
+ return cache_batch(ctrlr, rpm_msg, count);
Previously I said:
Don't you need to free rpm_msg items in this case?
...but I think that wasn't clear enough. Perhaps I should have said:
Don't you need to free rpm_msg items in the case where cache_batch
returns an error? AKA squash in <http://crosreview.com/1079906>.
Now I got it. will add the changes in next spin.
+
+ atomic_set(&wait_count, count);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ rpm_msg[i]->completion = &compl;
+ rpm_msg[i]->wait_count = &wait_count;
+ ret = rpmh_rsc_send_data(ctrlr->drv, &rpm_msg[i]->msg);
+ if (ret) {
+ int j;
You're shadowing another "j" variable. Please squash in
<http://crosreview.com/1080027>.
Agreed.
+
+ pr_err("Error(%d) sending RPMH message addr=%#x\n",
+ ret, rpm_msg[i]->msg.cmds[0].addr);
+ for (j = i; j < count; j++)
+ rpmh_tx_done(&rpm_msg[j]->msg, ret);
Previously I said:
Note that you'll probably do your error handling in this
function a favor if you rename __get_rpmh_msg_async()
to __fill_rpmh_msg() and remove the memory
allocation from there
I tried to implement this but then I realized cache_batch() requires
individual allocation. Sigh.
OK, I attempted this in <http://crosreview.com/1080028>. This gets
rid of several static-sized arrays and gets rid of all of the little
memory allocations in rpmh_write_batch(), replacing it with one bigger
one. In my mind this is an improvement, but I welcome other opinions.
As discussed previously, I'm still of the belief that we'll be better
off getting rid of separate "batch" data structures. I'll see if I
can find some time to do that too and see how it looks.
-Doug
Thanks,
Raju
--
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
