On Fri 24 Apr 13:01 PDT 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> Refactor function rproc_fw_boot() in order to better reflect the work
> that is done when supporting scenarios where the remoteproc core is
> synchronising with a remote processor.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index a02593b75bec..e90a21de9de1 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -1370,9 +1370,9 @@ static int rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> }
>
> /*
> - * take a firmware and boot a remote processor with it.
> + * boot or synchronise with a remote processor.
> */
> -static int rproc_fw_boot(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> +static int rproc_actuate_device(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
Per patch 4 this function will if rproc_needs_syncing() be called with
fw == NULL, it's not obvious to me that the various operations on "fw"
in this function are valid anymore.
> {
> struct device *dev = &rproc->dev;
> const char *name = rproc->firmware;
> @@ -1382,7 +1382,9 @@ 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_needs_syncing(rproc))
Can't we make this check on fw, to make the relationship "if we where
passed a firmware object, we're going to load and boot that firmware"?
Regards,
Bjorn
> + dev_info(dev, "Booting fw image %s, size %zd\n",
> + name, fw->size);
>
> /*
> * if enabling an IOMMU isn't relevant for this rproc, this is
> @@ -1818,7 +1820,7 @@ int rproc_boot(struct rproc *rproc)
> }
> }
>
> - ret = rproc_fw_boot(rproc, firmware_p);
> + ret = rproc_actuate_device(rproc, firmware_p);
>
> release_firmware(firmware_p);
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
