Re: [PATCH 2/2] remoteproc: core: Rework obtaining a rproc from a DT phandle

[Santosh Shilimkar]

+Suman,

On 8/10/2016 10:15 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue 19 Jul 08:49 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> > In this patch we;
> >  - Use a subsystem generic phandle to obtain an rproc
> >    - We have to support TI's bespoke version for the time being
> >  - Convert wkup_m3_ipc driver to new API
> >  - Rename the call to be more like other, similar OF calls
> >  - Move feature-not-enabled inline stub to the headers
> >  - Strip out duplicate code by calling into of_get_rproc_by_index()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 41 ++++++++----------------------------
> >  drivers/soc/ti/wkup_m3_ipc.c         | 14 +++---------
> >  include/linux/remoteproc.h           |  4 ++--
> >  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> [..]
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/wkup_m3_ipc.c b/drivers/soc/ti/wkup_m3_ipc.c
> > index 8823cc8..15481f3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/ti/wkup_m3_ipc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/wkup_m3_ipc.c
> > @@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ static int wkup_m3_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >  	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >  	int irq, ret;
> > -	phandle rproc_phandle;
> >  	struct rproc *m3_rproc;
> >  	struct resource *res;
> >  	struct task_struct *task;
> > @@ -430,16 +429,9 @@ static int wkup_m3_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		return PTR_ERR(m3_ipc->mbox);
> >  	}
> >
> > -	if (of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "ti,rproc", &rproc_phandle)) {
> > -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not get rproc phandle\n");
> > -		ret = -ENODEV;
> > -		goto err_free_mbox;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	m3_rproc = rproc_get_by_phandle(rproc_phandle);
> > -	if (!m3_rproc) {
> > -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not get rproc handle\n");
> > -		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +	m3_rproc = of_get_rproc_by_phandle(dev->of_node);
> > +	if (IS_ERR(m3_rproc)) {
> > +		ret = PTR_ERR(m3_rproc);
> >  		goto err_free_mbox;
> >  	}
>
> Santosh, do you have any objections to me merging this?
This looks ok to me but I have not been merdging the remote
proc code. Looping Suman who IIRC, was looking at it along
with Ohad.

> of_get_rproc_by_phandle() will fall back and attempt to acquire the
> handle from ti,rproc if the generic "rprocs" property doesn't exist.

Suman,
Can you please check this series and see if you can line this up ?
Am not sure if Ohad still maintaining it.

Regards,
Santosh