linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] remoteproc: da8xx: use the reset framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c09d4838-4938-4744-7ce9-4de99080cbe3@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Mar 2018 16:28:41 -0500
From:   Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
CC:     <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] remoteproc: da8xx: use the reset framework

Hi Bart,

On 03/23/2018 08:04 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> 
> Switch to using the reset framework instead of handcoded reset routines
> we used so far.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> index f134192922e0..3689473f8b49 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/da8xx_remoteproc.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
>  #include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/reset.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> @@ -20,8 +21,6 @@
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
>  
> -#include <mach/clock.h>   /* for davinci_clk_reset_assert/deassert() */
> -
>  #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
>  
>  static char *da8xx_fw_name;
> @@ -72,6 +71,7 @@ struct da8xx_rproc {
>  	struct da8xx_rproc_mem *mem;
>  	int num_mems;
>  	struct clk *dsp_clk;
> +	struct reset_control *dsp_reset;
>  	void (*ack_fxn)(struct irq_data *data);
>  	struct irq_data *irq_data;
>  	void __iomem *chipsig;
> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  	struct device *dev = rproc->dev.parent;
>  	struct da8xx_rproc *drproc = (struct da8xx_rproc *)rproc->priv;
>  	struct clk *dsp_clk = drproc->dsp_clk;
> +	struct reset_control *dsp_reset = drproc->dsp_reset;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* hw requires the start (boot) address be on 1KB boundary */
> @@ -155,7 +156,11 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	davinci_clk_reset_deassert(dsp_clk);
> +	ret = reset_control_deassert(dsp_reset);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "reset_control_deassert() failed: %d\n", ret);
> +		return ret;

need to unwind the clk_prepare_enable() here.

> +	}
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -163,8 +168,15 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>  static int da8xx_rproc_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>  {
>  	struct da8xx_rproc *drproc = rproc->priv;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = reset_control_assert(drproc->dsp_reset);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(rproc->dev.parent,
> +			"reset_control_assert() failed: %d\n", ret);

prefer the trace statement to be on the same line as dev_err, you can
just keep the ret on the next line. I am fine with defining a local dev
variable as well (mirrors da8xx_rproc_start() to have the trace in a
single line).

> +		return ret;
> +	}
>  
> -	davinci_clk_reset_assert(drproc->dsp_clk);
>  	clk_disable_unprepare(drproc->dsp_clk);
>  
>  	return 0;
> @@ -232,6 +244,7 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct resource *bootreg_res;
>  	struct resource *chipsig_res;
>  	struct clk *dsp_clk;
> +	struct reset_control *dsp_reset;
>  	void __iomem *chipsig;
>  	void __iomem *bootreg;
>  	int irq;
> @@ -268,6 +281,15 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return PTR_ERR(dsp_clk);
>  	}
>  
> +	dsp_reset = devm_reset_control_get_exclusive(dev, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(dsp_reset)) {
> +		if (PTR_ERR(dsp_reset) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> +			dev_err(dev, "unable to get reset control: %ld\n",
> +				PTR_ERR(dsp_reset));
> +
> +		return PTR_ERR(dsp_reset);
> +	}
> +
>  	if (dev->of_node) {
>  		ret = of_reserved_mem_device_init(dev);
>  		if (ret) {
> @@ -309,7 +331,7 @@ static int da8xx_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	 * *not* in reset, but da8xx_rproc_start() needs the DSP to be
>  	 * held in reset at the time it is called.
>  	 */
> -	ret = davinci_clk_reset_assert(drproc->dsp_clk);
> +	ret = reset_control_assert(dsp_reset);
>  	if (ret)
>  		goto free_rproc;
>  

The reset API usage changes themselves look good otherwise.

regards
Suman