RE: [PATCH v2 03/16] remoteproc: introduce rproc_add_carveout function

[Loic PALLARDY]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Andersson [mailto:bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 1:37 AM
> To: Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx>
> Cc: ohad@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-remoteproc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@xxxxxx>;
> benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/16] remoteproc: introduce rproc_add_carveout
> function
> 
> On Thu 30 Nov 08:46 PST 2017, Loic Pallardy wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > index f23daf9..279320a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > @@ -737,6 +737,7 @@ static int rproc_handle_carveout(struct rproc
> *rproc,
> >  	carveout->dma = dma;
> >  	carveout->da = rsc->da;
> >  	carveout->release = rproc_release_carveout;
> > +	carveout->priv = (void *)CARVEOUT_RSC_ALLOCATED;
> 
> I don't fancy the (ab)use of priv to keep track of this, I also don't
> see that it's ever used. Please drop it.
It was to distinguish carveout defined from resource table and carveout registered by driver.
But agree about priv field usage
> 
> [..]
> > +int rproc_add_carveout(struct rproc *rproc, struct rproc_mem_entry
> *mem)
> > +{
> > +	if (!rproc || !mem)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> I don't see this function doing more than adding the item to the list of
> carveouts, which can't fail. So let's just rely on the user calling it
> with valid references and make it return void.
Ok

> 
> > +
> > +	mem->priv = (void *)CARVEOUT_EXTERNAL;
> > +
> > +	list_add_tail(&mem->node, &rproc->carveouts);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_add_carveout);
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn