[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82e9f075-0526-ac34-fa92-14a7402825fd@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 23:07:01 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: tanmay.shah@...inx.com
Cc: ben.levinsky@...inx.com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
michal.simek@...inx.com,
openamp-system-reference@...ts.openampproject.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/6] drivers: remoteproc: Add Xilinx r5 remoteproc
driver
Hi,
should there be a v9, a nitpick below.
Le 02/06/2022 à 22:38, Tanmay Shah a écrit :
> This driver enables r5f dual core Real time Processing Unit subsystem
> available on Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale MPSoC Platform. RPU subsystem
> (cluster) can be configured in different modes e.g. split mode in which
> two r5f cores work independent of each other and lock-step mode in which
> both r5f cores execute same code clock-for-clock and notify if the
> result is different.
>
> The Xilinx r5 Remoteproc Driver boots the RPU cores via calls to the Xilinx
> Platform Management Unit that handles the R5 configuration, memory access
> and R5 lifecycle management. The interface to this manager is done in this
> driver via zynqmp_pm_* function calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@...lic.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@...lic.gmane.org>
> ---
>
[...]
> +static void zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(void *data)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *pdev = (struct platform_device *)data;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + int i;
> +
> + cluster = (struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *)platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + if (!cluster)
> + return;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> + zynqmp_r5_core_exit(cluster->r5_cores[i]);
> + cluster->r5_cores[i] = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + kfree(cluster->r5_cores);
> + kfree(cluster);
why not remove this kfree(cluster) here...
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe()
> + *
> + * @pdev: domain platform device for R5 cluster
> + *
> + * called when driver is probed, for each R5 core specified in DT,
> + * setup as needed to do remoteproc-related operations
> + *
> + * Return: 0 for success, negative value for failure.
> + */
> +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +
> + cluster = kzalloc(sizeof(*cluster), GFP_KERNEL);
... devm_kzalloc() here...
> + if (!cluster)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cluster->dev = dev;
> +
> + ret = devm_of_platform_populate(dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to populate platform dev\n");
> + kfree(cluster);
> + return ret;
and return dev_err_probe() here (without the kfree)?
Would'nt it be cleaner?
just my 2c
CJ
> + }
> +
> + /* wire in so each core can be cleaned up at driver remove */
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cluster);
> +
> + ret = zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(cluster);
> + if (ret) {
> + zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(pdev);
> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Invalid r5f subsystem device tree\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit, pdev);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists