On 08/10/2016 03:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 10 Aug 12:37 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote: > >> Hi Lee, Bjorn, >> >> On 08/10/2016 12:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Tue 19 Jul 08:49 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote: >>> >>>> - of_rproc_by_index(): look-up and obtain a reference to a rproc >>>> using the DT phandle "rprocs" and a index. >>>> >>>> - of_rproc_by_name(): lookup and obtain a reference to a rproc >>>> using the DT phandle "rprocs" and "rproc-names". >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> >>> I'm happy with this, so I whipped up a binding document describing our >>> two new properties. Waiting for an opinion on that before I merge this. >> >> Yeah, I like the two new API too, I have just about run into the need >> for the same on my product trees. We can probably make it less >> complicated than what the current series is. The wkup_m3_ipc usage was >> before there was any standardization on the property names, so we went >> with a ti, prefixed property specific to the wkup_m3_ipc node and a >> general API that is agnostic of property name. We don't have all the >> pieces for PM on AM335x/AM437x SoCs on upstream kernel yet, so we should >> be able to switch over to using the new property as we cannot achieve >> the desired functionality even though we can boot the wkup_m3. >> > > Glad to hear you're onboard with dropping the old property name, even if > it's later. > >> Here's what I propose: >> 1. Let's not burden the new of_get_rproc_by_index() API with having to >> fall-back and look for ti,rprocs. The rproc_get_by_phandle() core logic >> of looking up against the rproc list is self-contained, and the API >> usage is limited to just the wkup_m3_ipc driver at the moment. >> 2. Keep the rproc_get_by_phandle API as is but mark it as deprecated. >> IMHO, the rename of this API to of_get_rproc_by_phandle() in Patch 2 but >> using a device node pointer as input argument doesn't add any value. >> 3. Provide a fallback in wkup_m3_ipc driver to look for both rprocs and >> ti,rproc property, while switching over the node to use rprocs property. >> 4. We can get rid of the rproc_get_by_phandle() API after the >> wkup_m3_ipc transition is done to use of_get_rproc_by_index() API. >> > > I don't fancy the idea of leaving the kernel builds with a deprecation > warning for some time and I don't feel the cost of carrying those 2 > extra statements is a bigger issue than keeping a deprecated API around. > And it will be less than the dance we have to do in wkup_m3_ipc. > > So I think that we should merge these patches and if it can be concluded > that we don't need backwards compatibility with the old DT property we > can drop the inner conditional in the API. Yeah, I am fine with dropping the inner ti,rproc processing in the new of_rproc_get_by_index() API and keeping it clean. What's not clear to me is why we would still need a get_by_phandle API alongside the two new API once the wkup_m3_ipc is converted to the new API? Or is it just to clean up the consumer interface? If latter, I will fixup the wkup_m3_ipc driver without the need for remoteproc core changes, and switch over to the new API. regards Suman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-remoteproc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
