linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] interconnect: qcom: Add QDU1000/QRU1000 interconnect driver

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: <76219489-99cc-7f2e-7df6-b11f6a2c1933@quicinc.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:55:07 -0600
From:   Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
CC:     Odelu Kukatla <quic_okukatla@...cinc.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] interconnect: qcom: Add QDU1000/QRU1000
 interconnect driver



On 11/20/2022 6:19 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 18/11/2022 à 19:22, Melody Olvera a écrit :
>> Add interconnect provider driver for Qualcomm QDU1000 and QRU1000
>> platforms.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/Kconfig   |    9 +
>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/Makefile  |    2 +
>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c | 1079 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h |   95 +++
>>   4 files changed, 1185 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c
>>   create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +static int qnoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    ret = qcom_icc_rpmh_probe(pdev);
>> +    if (ret)
>> +        dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register ICC provider\n");
>> +
>> +    return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int qnoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> +    struct qcom_icc_provider *qp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> +
>> +    icc_nodes_remove(&qp->provider);
>> +    icc_provider_del(&qp->provider);
>
> qcom_icc_rpmh_remove()?
>
> (more future proof, less verbose and more consistent with qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() in the probe)
>
> CJ

Good call. Does it make sense to just set the .probe and .remove functions as
qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() and qcom_icc_rpmh_remove(), respectively? Probe function
is just reporting if qcom_icc_rpmh_probe fails.

Thanks,
Melody
>
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id qnoc_of_match[] = {
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt",
>> +      .data = &qdu1000_clk_virt
>> +    },
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-gem-noc",
>> +      .data = &qdu1000_gem_noc
>> +    },
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt",
>> +      .data = &qdu1000_mc_virt
>> +    },
>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-system-noc",
>> +      .data = &qdu1000_system_noc
>> +    },
>> +    { }
>> +};
>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qnoc_of_match);
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver qnoc_driver = {
>> +    .probe = qnoc_probe,
>> +    .remove = qnoc_remove,
>> +    .driver = {
>> +        .name = "qnoc-qdu1000",
>> +        .of_match_table = qnoc_of_match,
>> +    },
>> +};
>
> [...]
>