Hi Mathieu On 07/09/22 00:59, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > Good day, > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 02:41:27PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote: >> Hi Mathieu, >> >> On 19/07/22 21:46, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:26:50AM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote: >>>> From: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Client device node property ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel can now be used to >>>> configure the GPMUX config value for PRU. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> >>>> [s-anna@xxxxxx: simplify the pru id usage] >>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan@xxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> V4->v5 >>>> * This patch was included in v4 and had some checkpatch errors that have >>>> been resolved in v5 >>>> --- >>>> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c >>>> index 2977eb50631b..f2c6c55f0f20 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c >>>> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ struct pru_private_data { >>>> * @dbg_single_step: debug state variable to set PRU into single step mode >>>> * @dbg_continuous: debug state variable to restore PRU execution mode >>>> * @evt_count: number of mapped events >>>> + * @gpmux_save: saved value for gpmux config >>>> */ >>>> struct pru_rproc { >>>> int id; >>>> @@ -141,6 +142,7 @@ struct pru_rproc { >>>> u32 dbg_single_step; >>>> u32 dbg_continuous; >>>> u8 evt_count; >>>> + u8 gpmux_save; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static inline u32 pru_control_read_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg) >>>> @@ -250,6 +252,7 @@ struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, >>>> struct device *dev; >>>> const char *fw_name; >>>> int ret; >>>> + u32 mux; >>>> >>>> try_module_get(THIS_MODULE); >>>> >>>> @@ -273,6 +276,22 @@ struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, >>>> >>>> mutex_unlock(&pru->lock); >>>> >>>> + ret = pruss_cfg_get_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, &pru->gpmux_save); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get cfg gpmux: %d\n", ret); >>>> + goto err; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel", index, >>>> + &mux); >>>> + if (!ret) { >>>> + ret = pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, mux); >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to set cfg gpmux: %d\n", ret); >>>> + goto err; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> if (pru_id) >>>> *pru_id = pru->id; >>>> >>>> @@ -310,6 +329,7 @@ void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc) >>>> >>>> pru = rproc->priv; >>>> >>>> + pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, pru->gpmux_save); >>>> pru_rproc_set_firmware(rproc, NULL); >>>> >>> >>> CC drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.o >>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c: In function ‘pru_rproc_get’: >>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c:279:8: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pruss_cfg_get_gpmux’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 279 | ret = pruss_cfg_get_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, &pru->gpmux_save); >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> /home/mpoirier/work/remoteproc/kernel-review/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c:288:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘pruss_cfg_set_gpmux’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>> 288 | ret = pruss_cfg_set_gpmux(pru->pruss, pru->id, mux); >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> I get this on both rproc-next and today's linux next. >> >> This patch is dependent on the series [2] Introduce PRU platform consumer API >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/cover/20220406094358.7895-1-p-mohan@xxxxxx/ >> as the api pruss_cfg_get_gpmux calls the api pruss_cfg_read and the api >> pruss_cfg_set_gpmux calls the api pruss_cfg_update which are implemented by the >> patch "soc: ti: pruss: Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API" in the above series. >> > > What I read from the cover letter is that the series you are referring to was an > RFC that predated this series. Also from the cover letter, the second paragraph > clearly indicate that two other series _depend_ on this series. As such there > was no way for me to identify the dependency. > >> This error is coming as the dependent patch needs the patch "soc: ti: pruss: >> Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API" to be applied for compilation. > > Please provide a link when referencing patchsets. That way we know exactly > which one we are talking about. > Sure, the current patch is dependent on the patch [PATCH v2 3/6] soc: ti: pruss: Add pruss_cfg_read()/update() API https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220418123004.9332-4-p-mohan@xxxxxx/ Thanks, Danish. >> >> Thanks, >> Danish. >> >>> >>>> mutex_lock(&pru->lock); >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>>