linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 2/5] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in start

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: <20210723220248.6554-3-s-anna@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:02:45 -0500
From:   Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
CC:     Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@...com>,
        Praneeth Bajjuri <praneeth@...com>,
        Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>,
        <linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] remoteproc: k3-r5: Refactor mbox request code in start

Refactor out the mailbox request and associated ping logic code
from k3_r5_rproc_start() function into its own separate function
so that it can be re-used in the soon to be added .attach() ops
callback.

Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
---
v2: No code changes, picked up Reviewed-by tags
v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/patch/20210522000309.26134-4-s-anna@ti.com/

 drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 66 ++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
index 71615210df3e..03f930758b2d 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
@@ -376,6 +376,44 @@ static inline int k3_r5_core_run(struct k3_r5_core *core)
 				       0, PROC_BOOT_CTRL_FLAG_R5_CORE_HALT);
 }
 
+static int k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(struct rproc *rproc)
+{
+	struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
+	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
+	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
+	int ret;
+
+	client->dev = dev;
+	client->tx_done = NULL;
+	client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback;
+	client->tx_block = false;
+	client->knows_txdone = false;
+
+	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
+	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
+		ret = -EBUSY;
+		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
+			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
+	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
+	 *
+	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
+	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
+	 */
+	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
+		mbox_free_channel(kproc->mbox);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 /*
  * The R5F cores have controls for both a reset and a halt/run. The code
  * execution from DDR requires the initial boot-strapping code to be run
@@ -495,38 +533,14 @@ static int k3_r5_rproc_start(struct rproc *rproc)
 {
 	struct k3_r5_rproc *kproc = rproc->priv;
 	struct k3_r5_cluster *cluster = kproc->cluster;
-	struct mbox_client *client = &kproc->client;
 	struct device *dev = kproc->dev;
 	struct k3_r5_core *core;
 	u32 boot_addr;
 	int ret;
 
-	client->dev = dev;
-	client->tx_done = NULL;
-	client->rx_callback = k3_r5_rproc_mbox_callback;
-	client->tx_block = false;
-	client->knows_txdone = false;
-
-	kproc->mbox = mbox_request_channel(client, 0);
-	if (IS_ERR(kproc->mbox)) {
-		ret = -EBUSY;
-		dev_err(dev, "mbox_request_channel failed: %ld\n",
-			PTR_ERR(kproc->mbox));
+	ret = k3_r5_rproc_request_mbox(rproc);
+	if (ret)
 		return ret;
-	}
-
-	/*
-	 * Ping the remote processor, this is only for sanity-sake for now;
-	 * there is no functional effect whatsoever.
-	 *
-	 * Note that the reply will _not_ arrive immediately: this message
-	 * will wait in the mailbox fifo until the remote processor is booted.
-	 */
-	ret = mbox_send_message(kproc->mbox, (void *)RP_MBOX_ECHO_REQUEST);
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		dev_err(dev, "mbox_send_message failed: %d\n", ret);
-		goto put_mbox;
-	}
 
 	boot_addr = rproc->bootaddr;
 	/* TODO: add boot_addr sanity checking */
-- 
2.32.0