On Fri 27 Jul 08:20 PDT 2018, Sibi Sankar wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c[..]
+static void qcom_q6v5_dump_segment(struct rproc *rproc, void *ptr, size_t len,
+ void *priv)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+ struct q6v5 *qproc = (struct q6v5 *)rproc->priv;
+ static u32 pending_mask;
I dislike that this is a static variable. And it tracks the segments
that has already been dumped, i.e. the !pending.
+
+ /* Unlock mba before copying segments */
+ if (!qproc->mba_loaded)
+ ret = q6v5_mba_load(qproc);
+
+ if (!ptr || ret)
+ memset(priv, 0xff, len);
+ else
+ memcpy(priv, ptr, len);
+
+ pending_mask++;
This is a "count" and not a "mask".
I can see a few different cases where one would like to be able to pass
custom data/information from the segment-registration to the dump
function. So how about adding a "void *priv" to the dump segment.
For this particular case we could typecast segment->priv to an unsigned
long (as this is always the same size) and use that as a bitmask, which
we use to update pending_mask.
+ if (pending_mask == qproc->valid_mask) {
+ if (qproc->mba_loaded)
+ q6v5_mba_reclaim(qproc);
+ pending_mask = 0;
+ }
I think it would be cleaner to reset pending_mask in the start function,
and then return early in this function when we have dumped all the
segments.
If so can pending_mask == 0 and pending_mask == all be the triggers for
loading and reclaiming the mba? So we don't have two different trackers
for this?
+}
+
Regards,
Bjorn