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: <23c26121-6827-fef2-d9b6-6e64000d006f@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 20:02:57 +0100
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
        christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        djakov@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        quic_okukatla@...cinc.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] interconnect: qcom: Add QDU1000/QRU1000
 interconnect driver

Le 21/11/2022 à 18:55, Melody Olvera a écrit :
> 
> 
> 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-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@...lic.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>>    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.

I guess it is fine to remove qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() and 
qcom_icc_rpmh_remove().

I've already seen such pattern in some other drivers.


But this is just the point of view of someone who never wrote a driver 
himself :)

So let see if a maintainer gives his POV.

CJ

> 
> 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,
>>> +    },
>>> +};
>>
>> [...]
>>
> 
>