On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:53:18AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote: > Hi Mathieu > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:25 AM Mathieu Poirier > <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Shengjiu, > > > > This pachset doesn't apply to rproc-next, which is now located here[1]. The > > change is in linux-next but not in mainline yet. > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/remoteproc/linux.git/log/?h=rproc-next > > Ok, I will double check it and fix it. > > > > > On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 11:07:09AM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote: > > > Provide a basic driver to control DSP processor found on NXP i.MX8QM, > > > i.MX8QXP, i.MX8MP and i.MX8ULP. > > > > > > Currently it is able to resolve addresses between DSP and main CPU, > > > start and stop the processor, suspend and resume. > > > > > > The communication between DSP and main CPU is based on mailbox, there > > > are three mailbox channels (tx, rx, rxdb). > > > > > > This driver was tested on NXP i.MX8QM, i.MX8QXP, i.MX8MP and i.MX8ULP. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/remoteproc/Kconfig | 11 + > > > drivers/remoteproc/Makefile | 1 + > > > drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c | 1206 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 1218 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 drivers/remoteproc/imx_dsp_rproc.c > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * imx_dsp_attach_pm_domains() - attach the power domains > > > + * @priv: private data pointer > > > + * > > > + * On i.MX8QM and i.MX8QXP there is multiple power domains > > > + * required, so need to link them. > > > + */ > > > +static int imx_dsp_attach_pm_domains(struct imx_dsp_rproc *priv) > > > +{ > > > + struct device *dev = priv->rproc->dev.parent; > > > + int ret, i; > > > + > > > + priv->num_domains = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, > > > + "power-domains", > > > + "#power-domain-cells"); > > > + > > > + /* If only one domain, then no need to link the device */ > > > + if (priv->num_domains <= 1) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + priv->pd_dev = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, priv->num_domains, > > > + sizeof(*priv->pd_dev), > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!priv->pd_dev) > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > + > > > + priv->pd_dev_link = devm_kmalloc_array(dev, priv->num_domains, > > > + sizeof(*priv->pd_dev_link), > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > + if (!priv->pd_dev_link) > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < priv->num_domains; i++) { > > > + priv->pd_dev[i] = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(dev, i); > > > + if (IS_ERR(priv->pd_dev[i])) { > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->pd_dev[i]); > > > + goto detach_pm; > > > + } > > > > I have pointed a problem with the error handling in the above during the > > previous review and it was not addressed. > > I have considered your comments. Actually when > dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id() return NULL, the device_link_add() > will break, I have added comments below, so above error handling > for dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id() is enough. I would have used IS_ERR_OR_NULL() so that potential code inserted between the two function doesn't automatically assume priv->pd_dev[i] is valid. But what you have here will work. Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> > Best regards > Wang Shengjiu > > > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * device_link_add will check priv->pd_dev[i], if it is > > > + * NULL, then will break. > > > + */ > > > + priv->pd_dev_link[i] = device_link_add(dev, > > > + priv->pd_dev[i], > > > + DL_FLAG_STATELESS | > > > + DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME); > > > + if (!priv->pd_dev_link[i]) { > > > + dev_pm_domain_detach(priv->pd_dev[i], false); > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > + goto detach_pm; > > > + } > > > + } > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > +detach_pm: > > > + while (--i >= 0) { > > > + device_link_del(priv->pd_dev_link[i]); > > > + dev_pm_domain_detach(priv->pd_dev[i], false); > > > + } > > > + > > > + return ret; > > > +} > > > +
