Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: Proxy unvote clk/regs in handover context

[Sibi S]

Hi Bjorn,
Thanks for the review. Will make all the suggested changes.

On 05/19/2018 01:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 25 Apr 07:50 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>
> > Introduce interrupt handler for smp2p ready interrupt and
> > handle start completion. Remove the proxy votes for clocks
> > and regulators in the handover interrupt context. Disable
> > wdog and fatal interrupts on remoteproc device stop and
> > re-enable them on remoteproc device start.
>
> Can't the enable/disable dance be split out into a separate commit?
> Making the introduction of them cleaner in the git history?

will split it into separate commits

> > Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >   1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> > index 296eb3f8b551..7e2d04d4f2f0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> > @@ -143,6 +143,10 @@ struct q6v5 {
> >   	struct qcom_smem_state *state;
> >   	unsigned stop_bit;
> >   
> > +	unsigned int handover_interrupt;
> > +	unsigned int wdog_interrupt;
> > +	unsigned int fatal_interrupt;
>
> Make these "int", and write "irq" instead of "interrupt".

ok

> > +
> >   	struct clk *active_clks[8];
> >   	struct clk *proxy_clks[4];
> >   	int active_clk_count;
> > @@ -170,6 +174,7 @@ struct q6v5 {
> >   	struct qcom_rproc_ssr ssr_subdev;
> >   	struct qcom_sysmon *sysmon;
> >   	bool need_mem_protection;
> > +	bool unvoted_flag;
> >   	int mpss_perm;
> >   	int mba_perm;
> >   	int version;
> > @@ -727,6 +732,7 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   	int xfermemop_ret;
> >   	int ret;
> >   
> > +	qproc->unvoted_flag = false;
> >   	ret = q6v5_regulator_enable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
> >   				    qproc->proxy_reg_count);
> >   	if (ret) {
> > @@ -793,9 +799,16 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   	if (ret)
> >   		goto reclaim_mpss;
> >   
> > +	enable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> > +	enable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> > +	enable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
> > +
> >   	ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&qproc->start_done,
> >   					  msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> >   	if (ret == 0) {
> > +		disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> > +		disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> > +		disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
> >   		dev_err(qproc->dev, "start timed out\n");
> >   		ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >   		goto reclaim_mpss;
> > @@ -809,11 +822,6 @@ static int q6v5_start(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   			"Failed to reclaim mba buffer system may become unstable\n");
> >   	qproc->running = true;
> >   
> > -	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
> > -			 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
> > -	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
> > -			       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
> > -
> >   	return 0;
> >   
> >   reclaim_mpss:
> > @@ -892,6 +900,16 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
> >   	WARN_ON(ret);
> >   
> >   	reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
> > +	disable_irq(qproc->handover_interrupt);
> > +	if (!qproc->unvoted_flag) {
> > +		q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->proxy_clks,
> > +				 qproc->proxy_clk_count);
> > +		q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->proxy_regs,
> > +				       qproc->proxy_reg_count);
> > +	}
>
> Perhaps break this out into a separate function and call it from the two
> places?

Will create two separate functions for enable/disable

> > +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
> > +	disable_irq(qproc->fatal_interrupt);
>
> Any particular reason why you didn't group the disable_irq() calls
> together? Would look prettier than spreading them on each side of the
> resource disable.

Nope they can be grouped together.

> > +
> >   	q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
> >   			 qproc->active_clk_count);
> >   	q6v5_regulator_disable(qproc, qproc->active_regs,
> [..]
> > @@ -1184,19 +1221,31 @@ static int q6v5_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   
> >   	qproc->version = desc->version;
> >   	qproc->need_mem_protection = desc->need_mem_protection;
> > -	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt);
> > +	ret = q6v5_request_irq(qproc, pdev, "wdog", q6v5_wdog_interrupt,
> > +			       &qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>
> I think it's time to inline this function instead. You can omit the
> first error handling and rely on request_irq to fail if you pass it an
> invalid irq number.

I'll inline the function.

> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		goto free_rproc;
> > +	disable_irq(qproc->wdog_interrupt);
>
> I presume this is to balance the IRQ enable/disable later?

yes just to keep things symmetric.

> > +
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc, is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project