Hello Rob,
On 10/4/22 16:39, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 03:50:44PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
>> Define a platform driver to manage the remoteproc virtio device as
>> a platform devices.
>>
>> The platform device allows to pass rproc_vdev_data platform data to
>> specify properties that are stored in the rproc_vdev structure.
>>
>> Such approach will allow to preserve legacy remoteproc virtio device
>> creation but also to probe the device using device tree mechanism.
>>
>> remoteproc_virtio.c update:
>> - Add rproc_virtio_driver platform driver. The probe ops replaces
>> the rproc_rvdev_add_device function.
>> - All reference to the rvdev->dev has been updated to rvdev-pdev->dev.
>> - rproc_rvdev_release is removed as associated to the rvdev device.
>> - The use of rvdev->kref counter is replaced by get/put_device on the
>> remoteproc virtio platform device.
>> - The vdev device no longer increments rproc device counter.
>> increment/decrement is done in rproc_virtio_probe/rproc_virtio_remove
>> function in charge of the vrings allocation/free.
>>
>> remoteproc_core.c update:
>> Migrate from the rvdev device to the rvdev platform device.
>> From this patch, when a vdev resource is found in the resource table
>> the remoteproc core register a platform device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 12 +-
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_internal.h | 2 -
>> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c | 143 ++++++++++++-----------
>> include/linux/remoteproc.h | 6 +-
>> 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
>
> [...]
>
>> +/* Platform driver */
>> +static const struct of_device_id rproc_virtio_match[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "virtio,rproc" },
>
> This is not documented. Add a binding schema if you need DT support.
Mathieu also pointed this out to me in V8, you can see the discussion here [1]
Here is an extract:
"Yes I saw the warning, but for this first series it is not possible to declare
the associated "rproc-virtio" device in device tree.
So at this step it seems not make senses to create the devicetree bindings file.
More than that I don't know how I could justify the properties in bindings if
there is not driver code associated.
So i would be in favor of not adding the bindings in this series but to define
bindings in the first patch of my "step 2" series; as done on my github:
https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commit/9616d89a4f478cf78865a244efcde108d900f69f
"
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220920202201.GB1042164@p14s/
Regards,
Arnaud
>
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver rproc_virtio_driver = {
>> + .probe = rproc_virtio_probe,
>> + .remove = rproc_virtio_remove,
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "rproc-virtio",
>> + .of_match_table = rproc_virtio_match,
>> + },
>> +};
