Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Mar 2020 12:20:27 -0700 | From | Bjorn Andersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] remoteproc: qcom: Update PIL relocation info on load |
| |
On Tue 10 Mar 11:10 PDT 2020, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2020-03-09 23:33:36) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c > > index e953886b2eb7..d5cdff942535 100644 > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_adsp.c > > @@ -164,10 +166,18 @@ static int qcom_adsp_shutdown(struct qcom_adsp *adsp) > > static int adsp_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw) > > { > > struct qcom_adsp *adsp = (struct qcom_adsp *)rproc->priv; > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = qcom_mdt_load_no_init(adsp->dev, fw, rproc->firmware, 0, > > + adsp->mem_region, adsp->mem_phys, > > + adsp->mem_size, &adsp->mem_reloc); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > > > - return qcom_mdt_load_no_init(adsp->dev, fw, rproc->firmware, 0, > > - adsp->mem_region, adsp->mem_phys, adsp->mem_size, > > - &adsp->mem_reloc); > > + /* Failures only affect post mortem debugging, so ignore return value */ > > + qcom_pil_info_store(adsp->info_name, adsp->mem_reloc, adsp->mem_size); > > If the return value was void then the comment wouldn't be necessary and > it would be self documenting as such. Can we do that?
I started off with this in v1, but agreed with Mathieu to ignore the failures in the place where we actually don't care, rather than inside qcom_pil_info_store()...
Regards, Bjorn
| |