Hi Georgi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 03:11:34PM +0300, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> This patch introduce a new API to get requirements and configure the
nit: s/introduce/introduces/
> interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current
> demand.
>
> The API is using a consumer/provider-based model, where the providers are
> the interconnect buses and the consumers could be various drivers.
> The consumers request interconnect resources (path) between endpoints and
> set the desired constraints on this data flow path. The providers receive
> requests from consumers and aggregate these requests for all master-slave
> pairs on that path. Then the providers configure each participating in the
> topology node according to the requested data flow path, physical links and
> constraints. The topology could be complicated and multi-tiered and is SoC
> specific.
>
> Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/core.c b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>
> ...
>
> +static struct icc_path *path_find(struct device *dev, struct icc_node *src,
> + struct icc_node *dst)
> +{
> + struct icc_node *n, *node = NULL;
> + struct icc_provider *provider;
> + struct list_head traverse_list;
> + struct list_head edge_list;
> + struct list_head visited_list;
> + size_t i, depth = 0;
> + bool found = false;
> + int ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&traverse_list);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&edge_list);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&visited_list);
> +
> + list_add_tail(&src->search_list, &traverse_list);
> + src->reverse = NULL;
> +
> + do {
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(node, n, &traverse_list, search_list) {
> + if (node == dst) {
> + found = true;
> + list_add(&node->search_list, &visited_list);
> + break;
> + }
> + for (i = 0; i < node->num_links; i++) {
> + struct icc_node *tmp = node->links[i];
> +
> + if (!tmp) {
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + if (tmp->is_traversed)
> + continue;
> +
> + tmp->is_traversed = true;
> + tmp->reverse = node;
> + list_add(&tmp->search_list, &edge_list);
> + }
> + }
> + if (found)
> + break;
> +
> + list_splice_init(&traverse_list, &visited_list);
> + list_splice_init(&edge_list, &traverse_list);
> +
> + /* count the hops away from the source */
> + depth++;
> +
> + } while (!list_empty(&traverse_list));
> +
> +out:
> + /* reset the traversed state */
> + list_for_each_entry(provider, &icc_provider_list, provider_list) {
> + list_for_each_entry(n, &provider->nodes, node_list)
> + if (n->is_traversed)
> + n->is_traversed = false;
> + }
> +
> + if (found) {
> + struct icc_path *path = path_allocate(dst, depth);
> +
> + if (IS_ERR(path))
> + return path;
> +
> + /* initialize the path */
> + for (i = 0; i < path->num_nodes; i++) {
> + node = path->reqs[i].node;
> + path->reqs[i].dev = dev;
> + node->provider->users++;
nit: doing the assignment of path->reqs[i].dev before assiging 'node'
or after incrementing the 'users' would slightly improve readability.
> +static int apply_constraints(struct icc_path *path)
> +{
> + struct icc_node *next, *prev = NULL;
> + int ret = 0;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < path->num_nodes; i++, prev = next) {
> + struct icc_provider *p;
> +
> + next = path->reqs[i].node;
> + /*
> + * Both endpoints should be valid master-slave pairs of the
> + * same interconnect provider that will be configured.
> + */
> + if (!prev || next->provider != prev->provider)
> + continue;
> +
> + p = next->provider;
> +
> + aggregate_provider(p);
> +
> + if (p->set) {
> + /* set the constraints */
> + ret = p->set(prev, next, p->avg_bw, p->peak_bw);
> + }
remove curly brackets
EDIT: actually the condition can be removed, icc_provider_add() fails
when p->set is NULL.
> +int icc_set(struct icc_path *path, u32 avg_bw, u32 peak_bw)
> +{
> + struct icc_node *node;
> + struct icc_provider *p;
> + size_t i;
> + int ret = 0;
initialization is not necessary
> +struct icc_path *icc_get(struct device *dev, const int src_id, const int dst_id)
> +{
> + struct icc_node *src, *dst;
> + struct icc_path *path = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> +
> + src = node_find(src_id);
> + if (!src) {
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: invalid src=%d\n", __func__, src_id);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + dst = node_find(dst_id);
> + if (!dst) {
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: invalid dst=%d\n", __func__, dst_id);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
> + path = path_find(dev, src, dst);
> + mutex_unlock(&icc_lock);
> + if (IS_ERR(path)) {
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: invalid path=%ld\n", __func__, PTR_ERR(path));
> + goto out;
this goto isn't really needed
> +struct icc_node *icc_node_create(int id)
> +{
> + struct icc_node *node;
> +
> + /* check if node already exists */
> + node = node_find(id);
> + if (node)
> + goto out;
> +
> + node = kzalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!node) {
> + node = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
> +
> + id = idr_alloc(&icc_idr, node, id, id + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (WARN(id < 0, "couldn't get idr")) {
kfree(node);
> +int icc_node_add(struct icc_node *node, struct icc_provider *provider)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
> +
> + node->provider = provider;
> + list_add(&node->node_list, &provider->nodes);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&icc_lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
The function returns always 0. Should probably be void so callers
don't add pointless checks of the return value.
> +int icc_provider_add(struct icc_provider *provider)
> +{
> + if (WARN_ON(!provider->set))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + mutex_init(&icc_lock);
Shouldn't this be mutex_lock()?
> +int icc_provider_del(struct icc_provider *provider)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
> + if (provider->users) {
> + pr_warn("interconnect provider still has %d users\n",
> + provider->users);
> + mutex_unlock(&icc_lock);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> + if (!list_empty_careful(&provider->nodes)) {
> + pr_warn("interconnect provider still has nodes\n");
> + mutex_unlock(&icc_lock);
> + return -EEXIST;
> + }
Could this be just list_empty()? If I didn't miss something icc_lock
is held in all paths that change p->nodes (assuming that all changes
should be done through the interfaces in this file).
Actually this check will always fail if icc_node_add() was called for
this provider, it doesn't seem nodes are ever removed.
Cheers
Matthias
--
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
