lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 6/6] drivers: remoteproc: Add Xilinx r5 remoteproc driver
From
Hi,

should there be a v9, a nitpick below.

Le 02/06/2022 à 22:38, Tanmay Shah a écrit :
> This driver enables r5f dual core Real time Processing Unit subsystem
> available on Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale MPSoC Platform. RPU subsystem
> (cluster) can be configured in different modes e.g. split mode in which
> two r5f cores work independent of each other and lock-step mode in which
> both r5f cores execute same code clock-for-clock and notify if the
> result is different.
>
> The Xilinx r5 Remoteproc Driver boots the RPU cores via calls to the Xilinx
> Platform Management Unit that handles the R5 configuration, memory access
> and R5 lifecycle management. The interface to this manager is done in this
> driver via zynqmp_pm_* function calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <ben.levinsky-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Tanmay Shah <tanmay.shah-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>

[...]

> +static void zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(void *data)
> +{
> + struct platform_device *pdev = (struct platform_device *)data;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + int i;
> +
> + cluster = (struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *)platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> + if (!cluster)
> + return;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < cluster->core_count; i++) {
> + zynqmp_r5_core_exit(cluster->r5_cores[i]);
> + cluster->r5_cores[i] = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + kfree(cluster->r5_cores);
> + kfree(cluster);

why not remove this kfree(cluster) here...

> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe()
> + *
> + * @pdev: domain platform device for R5 cluster
> + *
> + * called when driver is probed, for each R5 core specified in DT,
> + * setup as needed to do remoteproc-related operations
> + *
> + * Return: 0 for success, negative value for failure.
> + */
> +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct zynqmp_r5_cluster *cluster;
> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> +
> + cluster = kzalloc(sizeof(*cluster), GFP_KERNEL);

... devm_kzalloc() here...

> + if (!cluster)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cluster->dev = dev;
> +
> + ret = devm_of_platform_populate(dev);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to populate platform dev\n");
> + kfree(cluster);
> + return ret;

and return dev_err_probe() here (without the kfree)?
Would'nt it be cleaner?

just my 2c

CJ

> + }
> +
> + /* wire in so each core can be cleaned up at driver remove */
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cluster);
> +
> + ret = zynqmp_r5_cluster_init(cluster);
> + if (ret) {
> + zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit(pdev);
> + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Invalid r5f subsystem device tree\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, zynqmp_r5_cluster_exit, pdev);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +

[...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-02 23:08    [W:0.197 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site