linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dbad946a-97b1-ff58-38a6-6a92ee97ccd5@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 May 2018 22:19:39 +0530
From:   Sibi S <sibis@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     ohad@...ery.com, clew@...eaurora.org,
        linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for the review. Will make all the suggested changes.

On 05/19/2018 01:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> 
>> Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
>> handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
>> and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
>> wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
>> re-enable them on remoteproc device start.
> 
> Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
> Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?
> 

will split it into separate commits

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
>>   	struct qcom_smem_state *state;
>>   	unsigned stop_bit;
>>   
>> +	unsigned int handover_interrupt;
>> +	unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
>> +	unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
> 
> Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".
> 

ok

>> +
>>   	struct clk *active_clks[8];
>>   	struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
>>   	int active_clk_count;
>> @@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
>>   	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
>>   	struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
>>   	bool need_mem_protection;
>> +	bool unvoted_flag;
>>   	int mpss_perm;
>>   	int mba_perm;
>>   	int version;
>> @@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	int xfermemop_ret;
>>   	int ret;
>>   
>> +	qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
>>   	ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>>   				    qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>>   	if (ret) {
>> @@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		goto reclaim_mpss;
>>   
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +	enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>> +
>>   	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
>>   					  msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
>>   	if (ret == 0) {
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +		disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>>   		dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
>>   		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
>>   		goto reclaim_mpss;
>> @@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   			"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
>>   	qproc->running = true;
>>   
>> -	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> -			 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> -	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> -			       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> -
>>   	return 0;
>>   
>>   reclaim_mpss:
>> @@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>>   	WARN_ON(ret);
>>   
>>   	reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
>> +	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
>> +		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
>> +				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
>> +		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
>> +				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
>> +	}
> 
> Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
> places?

Will create two separate functions for enable/disable

> 
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
> 
> Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
> together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
> resource disable.

Nope they can be grouped together.

> 
>> +
>>   	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
>>   			 qproc->active_clk_count);
>>   	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
> [..]
>> @@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	qproc->version = desc->version;
>>   	qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
>> -	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
>> +	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
>> +			       &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> 
> I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
> first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
> invalid irq number.

I'll inline the function.

> 
>> +	if (ret < 0)
>> +		goto free_rproc;
>> +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> 
> I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?
> 

yes just to keep things symmetric.

>> +
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project