Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:05:58 +0200 | From | Marco Felsch <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: imx: Skip return value check for some special SCU firmware APIs |
| |
Hi Anson,
On 19-09-26 08:03, Anson Huang wrote: > Hi, Marco > > > On 19-09-25 18:07, Anson Huang wrote: > > > The SCU firmware does NOT always have return value stored in message > > > header's function element even the API has response data, those > > > special APIs are defined as void function in SCU firmware, so they > > > should be treated as return success always. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@nxp.com> > > > --- > > > - This patch is based on the patch of > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatc > > > > > hwork.kernel.org%2Fpatch%2F11129553%2F&data=02%7C01%7Canson. > > huang% > > > > > 40nxp.com%7C1f4108cc25eb4618f43c08d742576fa3%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa > > 92cd99 > > > > > c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637050815608963707&sdata=BZBg4cOR2rP%2 > > BRBNn15i > > > Qq3%2FXBYwhuCLkgYzFRbfEgVU%3D&reserved=0 > > > --- > > > drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c | 34 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > > > b/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c index 869be7a..ced5b12 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/imx/imx-scu.c > > > @@ -78,6 +78,11 @@ static int imx_sc_linux_errmap[IMX_SC_ERR_LAST] = > > { > > > -EIO, /* IMX_SC_ERR_FAIL */ > > > }; > > > > > > +static const struct imx_sc_rpc_msg whitelist[] = { > > > + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func = > > IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_UNIQUE_ID }, > > > + { .svc = IMX_SC_RPC_SVC_MISC, .func = > > > +IMX_SC_MISC_FUNC_GET_BUTTON_STATUS }, }; > > > > Is this going to be extended in the near future? I see some upcoming > > problems here if someone uses a different scu-fw<->kernel combination as > > nxp would suggest. > > Could be, but I checked the current APIs, ONLY these 2 will be used in Linux kernel, so > I ONLY add these 2 APIs for now.
Okay.
> However, after rethink, maybe we should add another imx_sc_rpc API for those special > APIs? To avoid checking it for all the APIs called which may impact some performance. > Still under discussion, if you have better idea, please advise, thanks!
Adding a special api shouldn't be the right fix. Imagine if someone (not a nxp-developer) wants to add a new driver. How could he be expected to know which api he should use. The better abbroach would be to fix the scu-fw instead of adding quirks..
Regards, Marco
> > Anson
| |