lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/3] interconnect: qcom: Add QDU1000/QRU1000 interconnect driver
From
Le 21/11/2022 à 18:55, Melody Olvera a écrit :
>
>
> On 11/20/2022 6:19 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>> Le 18/11/2022 à 19:22, Melody Olvera a écrit :
>>> Add interconnect provider driver for Qualcomm QDU1000 and QRU1000
>>> platforms.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/Kconfig   |    9 +
>>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/Makefile  |    2 +
>>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c | 1079 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h |   95 +++
>>>   4 files changed, 1185 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c
>>>   create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +static int qnoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +
>>> +    ret = qcom_icc_rpmh_probe(pdev);
>>> +    if (ret)
>>> +        dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register ICC provider\n");
>>> +
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int qnoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct qcom_icc_provider *qp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> +
>>> +    icc_nodes_remove(&qp->provider);
>>> +    icc_provider_del(&qp->provider);
>>
>> qcom_icc_rpmh_remove()?
>>
>> (more future proof, less verbose and more consistent with qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() in the probe)
>>
>> CJ
>
> Good call. Does it make sense to just set the .probe and .remove functions as
> qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() and qcom_icc_rpmh_remove(), respectively? Probe function
> is just reporting if qcom_icc_rpmh_probe fails.

I guess it is fine to remove qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() and
qcom_icc_rpmh_remove().

I've already seen such pattern in some other drivers.


But this is just the point of view of someone who never wrote a driver
himself :)

So let see if a maintainer gives his POV.

CJ

>
> Thanks,
> Melody
>>
>>> +
>>> +    return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id qnoc_of_match[] = {
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt",
>>> +      .data = &qdu1000_clk_virt
>>> +    },
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-gem-noc",
>>> +      .data = &qdu1000_gem_noc
>>> +    },
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt",
>>> +      .data = &qdu1000_mc_virt
>>> +    },
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-system-noc",
>>> +      .data = &qdu1000_system_noc
>>> +    },
>>> +    { }
>>> +};
>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qnoc_of_match);
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver qnoc_driver = {
>>> +    .probe = qnoc_probe,
>>> +    .remove = qnoc_remove,
>>> +    .driver = {
>>> +        .name = "qnoc-qdu1000",
>>> +        .of_match_table = qnoc_of_match,
>>> +    },
>>> +};
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-21 20:03    [W:0.040 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site