[PATCH 4/4] remoteproc: debugfs: Add ability to boot remote processor using debugfs
Nathan Lynch
Nathan_Lynch at mentor.com
Wed Aug 26 10:08:48 PDT 2015
On 08/26/2015 08:08 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
The commit message should describe why this is needed...
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
> index 9d30809..9620962 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_debugfs.c
> @@ -88,8 +88,33 @@ static ssize_t rproc_state_read(struct file *filp, char __user *userbuf,
> return simple_read_from_buffer(userbuf, count, ppos, buf, i);
> }
>
> +static ssize_t rproc_state_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *userbuf,
> + size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + struct rproc *rproc = filp->private_data;
> + char buf[2];
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = copy_from_user(buf, userbuf, 1);
> + if (ret)
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + switch (buf[0]) {
> + case '1':
> + ret = rproc_boot(rproc);
> + if (ret)
> + dev_warn(&rproc->dev, "Boot failed: %d\n", ret);
> + break;
> + default:
> + rproc_shutdown(rproc);
> + }
> +
> + return count;
> +}
... and I suggest that the user interface be reconsidered. If '1' means
"boot" and literally anything else means "shut down" then you can't add
operations in the future without potentially breaking things.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list