[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210615200102.GE604521@p14s>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:01:02 -0600
From: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
To: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, julien.massot@....bzh
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] rpmsg: char: Introduce the "rpmsg-raw" channel
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 07:30:31PM +0200, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
> Allows to probe the endpoint device on a remote name service announcement,
> by registering a rpmsg_driverfor the "rpmsg-raw" channel.
>
> With this patch the /dev/rpmsgX interface can be instantiated by the remote
> firmware.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@...s.st.com>
> ---
> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> index 4199ac1bee10..3b850b218eb0 100644
> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
>
> #include "rpmsg_char.h"
>
> +#define RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME "rpmsg-raw"
> +
> static dev_t rpmsg_major;
> static struct class *rpmsg_class;
>
> @@ -416,6 +418,40 @@ int rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev, struct device *parent
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create);
>
> +static int rpmsg_chrdev_probe(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
> +{
> + struct rpmsg_channel_info chinfo;
> +
> + memcpy(chinfo.name, RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME, sizeof(RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME));
> + chinfo.src = rpdev->src;
> + chinfo.dst = rpdev->dst;
> +
> + return __rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create(rpdev, &rpdev->dev, chinfo, true);
I am a little puzzled here as to why we need different modes... Why can't we
simply call rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_create() and let the endpoint be created on
open() and destroyed on release() as per the current implementation?
I'd rather keep things simple for the refactoring and introduce new features
later if need be.
As I said, it may be that I don't understand the usecase.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> +}
> +
> +static void rpmsg_chrdev_remove(struct rpmsg_device *rpdev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = device_for_each_child(&rpdev->dev, NULL, rpmsg_chrdev_eptdev_destroy);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_warn(&rpdev->dev, "failed to destroy endpoints: %d\n", ret);
> +}
> +
> +static struct rpmsg_device_id rpmsg_chrdev_id_table[] = {
> + { .name = RPMSG_CHAR_DEVNAME },
> + { },
> +};
> +
> +static struct rpmsg_driver rpmsg_chrdev_driver = {
> + .probe = rpmsg_chrdev_probe,
> + .remove = rpmsg_chrdev_remove,
> + .id_table = rpmsg_chrdev_id_table,
> + .drv = {
> + .name = "rpmsg_chrdev",
> + },
> +};
> +
> static int rpmsg_chrdev_init(void)
> {
> int ret;
> @@ -429,16 +465,30 @@ static int rpmsg_chrdev_init(void)
> rpmsg_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, "rpmsg");
> if (IS_ERR(rpmsg_class)) {
> pr_err("failed to create rpmsg class\n");
> - unregister_chrdev_region(rpmsg_major, RPMSG_DEV_MAX);
> - return PTR_ERR(rpmsg_class);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(rpmsg_class);
> + goto free_region;
> + }
> +
> + ret = register_rpmsg_driver(&rpmsg_chrdev_driver);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pr_err("rpmsg: failed to register rpmsg raw driver\n");
> + goto free_class;
> }
>
> return 0;
> +
> +free_class:
> + class_destroy(rpmsg_class);
> +free_region:
> + unregister_chrdev_region(rpmsg_major, RPMSG_DEV_MAX);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
> postcore_initcall(rpmsg_chrdev_init);
>
> static void rpmsg_chrdev_exit(void)
> {
> + unregister_rpmsg_driver(&rpmsg_chrdev_driver);
> class_destroy(rpmsg_class);
> unregister_chrdev_region(rpmsg_major, RPMSG_DEV_MAX);
> }
> --
> 2.17.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists