Re: [PATCH v8 10/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: allow active requests from wake TCS
From: Doug Anderson
Date: Fri May 11 2018 - 16:17:43 EST
Hi,
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Some RSCs may only have sleep and wake TCS, i.e, there is no dedicated
> TCS for active mode request, but drivers may still want to make active
> requests from these RSCs. In such cases re-purpose the wake TCS to send
> active state requests.
>
> The requirement for this is that the driver is aware that the wake TCS
> is being repurposed to send active request, hence the sleep and wake
> TCSes be invalidated before the active request is sent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> index 68c25ebbbe09..369b9b3eedc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
> const struct tcs_request *msg)
> {
> int type;
> + struct tcs_group *tcs;
>
> switch (msg->state) {
> case RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE:
> @@ -168,7 +169,22 @@ static struct tcs_group *get_tcs_for_msg(struct rsc_drv *drv,
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
>
> - return get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
> + /*
> + * If we are making an active request on a RSC that does not have a
> + * dedicated TCS for active state use, then re-purpose a wake TCS to
> + * send active votes.
> + * NOTE: The driver must be aware that this RSC does not have a
> + * dedicated AMC, and therefore would invalidate the sleep and wake
> + * TCSes before making an active state request.
> + */
> + tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, type);
> + if (msg->state == RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE && IS_ERR(tcs)) {
> + tcs = get_tcs_of_type(drv, WAKE_TCS);
> + if (!IS_ERR(tcs))
> + rpmh_rsc_invalidate(drv);
I noticed that rpmh_rsc_invalidate() can return -EAGAIN. Do you need
to deal with that here?
-Doug