Hi Mathieu,
On 3/24/20 4:45 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Renaming function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
> that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
> synchronising with an MCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index d57b47b0d6be..488723fcb142 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1363,7 +1363,8 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> /*
> * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> */
> -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> +static int rproc_actuate_platform(struct rproc *rproc,
> + const struct firmware *fw)
Perhaps rproc_actuate_device instead of using platform and hw in the
other patch.
> {
> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> const char *name = rproc->firmware;
> @@ -1373,7 +1374,9 @@ static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n", name, fw->size);
> + if (!rproc_sync_with_mcu(rproc))
> + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
> + name, fw->size);
Better off moving this to patch 11 since that's where you change the
behavior.
>
> /*
> * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> @@ -1756,7 +1759,7 @@ static int rproc_actuate(struct rproc *rproc,
> firmware_p ? "powering up" : "syncing with",
> rproc->name);
Also, you can move this similar "syncing with" trace from patch 10 to
patch 11.
regards
Suman
>
> - ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> + ret = rproc_actuate_platform(rproc, firmware_p);
> if (ret)
> atomic_dec(&rproc->power);
>
>
