[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230125185551.GA2034155@hu-bjorande-lv.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:55:51 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
To: Chris Lew <quic_clew@...cinc.com>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
<linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] rpmsg: glink: smem: Wrap driver context
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:30:42PM -0800, Chris Lew wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/2023 2:39 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > The Glink SMEM driver allocates a struct device and hangs two
> > devres-allocated pipe objects thereon. To facilitate the move of
> > interrupt and mailbox handling to the driver, introduce a wrapper object
> > capturing the device, glink reference and remote processor id.
> >
> > The type of the remoteproc reference is updated, as these are
> > specifically targetting the SMEM implementation.
>
> s/targetting/targeting
>
Thank you.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h | 3 +-
> > drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > include/linux/rpmsg/qcom_glink.h | 12 ++---
> > 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
> > index c35adf730be0..2747c7d9ba44 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_common.h
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> > #include "remoteproc_internal.h"
> > #include <linux/soc/qcom/qmi.h>
> > +struct qcom_glink_smem;
> > struct qcom_sysmon;
> > struct qcom_rproc_glink {
> > @@ -15,7 +16,7 @@ struct qcom_rproc_glink {
> > struct device *dev;
> > struct device_node *node;
> > - struct qcom_glink *edge;
> > + struct qcom_glink_smem *edge;
> > };
> > struct qcom_rproc_subdev {
> > diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c b/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> > index 579bc4443f6d..703e63fa5a86 100644
> > --- a/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/qcom_glink_smem.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,14 @@
> > #define SMEM_GLINK_NATIVE_XPRT_FIFO_0 479
> > #define SMEM_GLINK_NATIVE_XPRT_FIFO_1 480
> > +struct qcom_glink_smem {
> > + struct device dev;
> > +
> > + struct qcom_glink *glink;
> > +
> > + u32 remote_pid;
> > +};
> > +
> > struct glink_smem_pipe {
> > struct qcom_glink_pipe native;
> > @@ -41,7 +49,7 @@ struct glink_smem_pipe {
> > void *fifo;
> > - int remote_pid;
> > + struct qcom_glink_smem *smem;
> > };
> > #define to_smem_pipe(p) container_of(p, struct glink_smem_pipe, native)
> > @@ -49,13 +57,14 @@ struct glink_smem_pipe {
> > static size_t glink_smem_rx_avail(struct qcom_glink_pipe *np)
> > {
> > struct glink_smem_pipe *pipe = to_smem_pipe(np);
> > + struct qcom_glink_smem *smem = pipe->smem;
> > size_t len;
> > void *fifo;
> > u32 head;
> > u32 tail;
> > if (!pipe->fifo) {
> > - fifo = qcom_smem_get(pipe->remote_pid,
> > + fifo = qcom_smem_get(smem->remote_pid,
> > SMEM_GLINK_NATIVE_XPRT_FIFO_1, &len);
> > if (IS_ERR(fifo)) {
> > pr_err("failed to acquire RX fifo handle: %ld\n",
> > @@ -179,45 +188,49 @@ static void glink_smem_tx_write(struct qcom_glink_pipe *glink_pipe,
> > static void qcom_glink_smem_release(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > - kfree(dev);
> > + struct qcom_glink_smem *smem = container_of(dev, struct qcom_glink_smem, dev);
> > +
> > + kfree(smem);
> > }
> > -struct qcom_glink *qcom_glink_smem_register(struct device *parent,
> > - struct device_node *node)
> > +struct qcom_glink_smem *qcom_glink_smem_register(struct device *parent,
> > + struct device_node *node)
> > {
> > struct glink_smem_pipe *rx_pipe;
> > struct glink_smem_pipe *tx_pipe;
> > struct qcom_glink *glink;
> > - struct device *dev;
> > + struct qcom_glink_smem *smem;
>
> I think we're following reverse christmas tree in this file
>
> > u32 remote_pid;
> > __le32 *descs;
> > size_t size;
> > int ret;
> > - dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!dev)
> > + smem = kzalloc(sizeof(*smem), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!smem)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
>
> Would it be proper to keep a pointer to dev and avoid all the changes to
> smem->dev use?
>
> dev = &smem->dev;
>
That seems reasonable. Will respin accordingly.
Thanks,
Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists