[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160812180751.GH26240@tuxbot>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:07:51 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
"ohad@...ery.com" <ohad@...ery.com>,
"kernel@...inux.com" <kernel@...inux.com>,
"linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
"patrice.chotard@...com" <patrice.chotard@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ludovic.barre@...com" <ludovic.barre@...com>,
"ssantosh@...nel.org" <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] remoteproc: core: Add rproc OF look-up functions
On Fri 12 Aug 09:37 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> >> On 08/11/2016 02:31 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 08/10/2016 04:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed 10 Aug 14:04 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 08/10/2016 03:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed 10 Aug 12:37 PDT 2016, Suman Anna wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Lee, Bjorn,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 08/10/2016 12:40 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue 19 Jul 08:49 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - of_rproc_by_index(): look-up and obtain a reference to a rproc
> >>>>>>>>>> using the DT phandle "rprocs" and a index.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - of_rproc_by_name(): lookup and obtain a reference to a rproc
> >>>>>>>>>> using the DT phandle "rprocs" and "rproc-names".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@...com>
> >>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm happy with this, so I whipped up a binding document describing our
> >>>>>>>>> two new properties. Waiting for an opinion on that before I merge this.
>
> One last comment on this is the return code convention change on these
> rproc_get APIs. I am fine in general with returning ERR_PTRs, but most
> of the remoteproc code is using NULL checking for rproc. If you remember
> the discussion back during the hwspinlock DT conversion [1], Ohad
> preferred to return NULL, and that's why even the rproc_get_by_phandle
> was returning NULL. We ought to make this consistent across the board if
> we want to make this switch.
>
I think it makes sense to return the actual error from these functions,
if nothing else to keep it consistent with other frameworks.
The other case I see returning NULL is rproc_alloc(), which is think is
analog to kmalloc(), so I think that's fine to keep.
Luckily wkup_m3 is the only consumer of this API in the kernel today, so
we shouldn't have any issues wrt changing the return value here.
> regards
> Suman
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=138965891200008
Regards,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists