On Mon 29 Nov 07:29 CST 2021, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > Some devices without own memory resources could be placed anywhere in the > device tree but they logically belong to the modem remote processor. Make > it possible to probe them when defined under the mpss device tree node > by calling of_platform_populate(). > This seems reasonable, but other "child devices" of the remoteproc follows the state of the remoteproc instance. So I'm worried that this will create an inconsistency in that assumption. > This can be used for BAM-DMUX for example, which provides the WWAN network > interfaces on some older Qualcomm SoCs such as MSM8916 or MSM8974. > Is there a technical reason for placing the BAM-DMUX within the modem remoteproc node? Can we simply move it to / ? Regards, Bjorn > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > index 43ea8455546c..69f3d1ebf1f1 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c > @@ -1989,8 +1989,14 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (ret) > goto remove_sysmon_subdev; > > + ret = of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev); > + if (ret) > + goto remove_rproc; > + > return 0; > > +remove_rproc: > + rproc_del(rproc); > remove_sysmon_subdev: > qcom_remove_sysmon_subdev(qproc->sysmon); > remove_subdevs: > @@ -2010,6 +2016,7 @@ static int q6v5_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct q6v5 *qproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > struct rproc *rproc = qproc->rproc; > > + of_platform_depopulate(&pdev->dev); > rproc_del(rproc); > > qcom_q6v5_deinit(&qproc->q6v5); > -- > 2.34.1 >
