[PATCH v5 2/6] remoteproc: pru: Add APIs to get and put the PRU cores
Mathieu Poirier
mathieu.poirier at linaro.org
Mon Sep 19 13:45:13 PDT 2022
On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 05:40, Md Danish Anwar <a0501179 at ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 12/09/22 18:54, Romain Naour wrote:
> > Hi Danish, All,
> >
> > Le 07/09/2022 à 11:24, Md Danish Anwar a écrit :
> >> Hi Mathieu,
> >>
> >> On 07/09/22 00:58, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:09:04PM +0530, Md Danish Anwar wrote:
> >>>> Hi Mathieu,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15/07/22 11:52, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>>> +Danish
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Mathieu,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 14/07/22 22:50, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Puranjay,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Removed Puranjay (as he is no longer with TI) and adding Danish.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Kishon
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 10:26:46AM +0530, Puranjay Mohan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From: Tero Kristo <t-kristo at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Add two new APIs, pru_rproc_get() and pru_rproc_put(), to the PRU
> >>>>>>>> driver to allow client drivers to acquire and release the remoteproc
> >>>>>>>> device associated with a PRU core. The PRU cores are treated as
> >>>>>>>> resources with only one client owning it at a time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The pru_rproc_get() function returns the rproc handle corresponding
> >>>>>>>> to a PRU core identified by the device tree "ti,prus" property under
> >>>>>>>> the client node. The pru_rproc_put() is the complementary function
> >>>>>>>> to pru_rproc_get().
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk at linaro.org>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk at linaro.org>
> >>>>>>>> Co-developed-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c | 138 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>>>>> include/linux/pruss.h | 56 +++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/pruss.h
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
> >>>>>>>> index 1777a01fa84e..7a35b400287a 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/pru_rproc.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -2,12 +2,13 @@
> >>>>>>>> /*
> >>>>>>>> * PRU-ICSS remoteproc driver for various TI SoCs
> >>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>> - * Copyright (C) 2014-2020 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/
> >>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014-2022 Texas Instruments Incorporated - https://www.ti.com/
> >>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>> * Author(s):
> >>>>>>>> * Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> * Andrew F. Davis <afd at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> * Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk at linaro.org> for Texas Instruments
> >>>>>>>> + * Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >>>>>>>> @@ -16,6 +17,7 @@
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/module.h>
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/of_device.h>
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> >>>>>>>> +#include <linux/pruss.h>
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/pruss_driver.h>
> >>>>>>>> #include <linux/remoteproc.h>
> >>>>>>>> @@ -111,6 +113,8 @@ struct pru_private_data {
> >>>>>>>> * @rproc: remoteproc pointer for this PRU core
> >>>>>>>> * @data: PRU core specific data
> >>>>>>>> * @mem_regions: data for each of the PRU memory regions
> >>>>>>>> + * @client_np: client device node
> >>>>>>>> + * @lock: mutex to protect client usage
> >>>>>>>> * @fw_name: name of firmware image used during loading
> >>>>>>>> * @mapped_irq: virtual interrupt numbers of created fw specific mapping
> >>>>>>>> * @pru_interrupt_map: pointer to interrupt mapping description (firmware)
> >>>>>>>> @@ -126,6 +130,8 @@ struct pru_rproc {
> >>>>>>>> struct rproc *rproc;
> >>>>>>>> const struct pru_private_data *data;
> >>>>>>>> struct pruss_mem_region mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_MAX];
> >>>>>>>> + struct device_node *client_np;
> >>>>>>>> + struct mutex lock; /* client access lock */
> >>>>>>>> const char *fw_name;
> >>>>>>>> unsigned int *mapped_irq;
> >>>>>>>> struct pru_irq_rsc *pru_interrupt_map;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -146,6 +152,125 @@ void pru_control_write_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg, u32 val)
> >>>>>>>> writel_relaxed(val, pru->mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_CTRL].va + reg);
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>> +static struct rproc *__pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + struct device_node *rproc_np = NULL;
> >>>>>>>> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> >>>>>>>> + struct rproc *rproc;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + rproc_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "ti,prus", index);
> >>>>>>>> + if (!rproc_np || !of_device_is_available(rproc_np))
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(rproc_np);
> >>>>>>>> + of_node_put(rproc_np);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (!pdev || !(&pdev->dev) || !((&pdev->dev)->driver))
> >>>>>>>> + /* probably PRU not yet probed */
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + /* make sure it is PRU rproc */
> >>>>>>>> + if (!is_pru_rproc(&pdev->dev)) {
> >>>>>>>> + put_device(&pdev->dev);
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + rproc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >>>>>>>> + put_device(&pdev->dev);
> >>>>>>>> + if (!rproc)
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + get_device(&rproc->dev);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + return rproc;
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>>> + * pru_rproc_get() - get the PRU rproc instance from a device node
> >>>>>>>> + * @np: the user/client device node
> >>>>>>>> + * @index: index to use for the ti,prus property
> >>>>>>>> + * @pru_id: optional pointer to return the PRU remoteproc processor id
> >>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>> + * This function looks through a client device node's "ti,prus" property at
> >>>>>>>> + * index @index and returns the rproc handle for a valid PRU remote processor if
> >>>>>>>> + * found. The function allows only one user to own the PRU rproc resource at a
> >>>>>>>> + * time. Caller must call pru_rproc_put() when done with using the rproc, not
> >>>>>>>> + * required if the function returns a failure.
> >>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>> + * When optional @pru_id pointer is passed the PRU remoteproc processor id is
> >>>>>>>> + * returned.
> >>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>> + * Return: rproc handle on success, and an ERR_PTR on failure using one
> >>>>>>>> + * of the following error values
> >>>>>>>> + * -ENODEV if device is not found
> >>>>>>>> + * -EBUSY if PRU is already acquired by anyone
> >>>>>>>> + * -EPROBE_DEFER is PRU device is not probed yet
> >>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>> +struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index,
> >>>>>>>> + enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + struct rproc *rproc;
> >>>>>>>> + struct pru_rproc *pru;
> >>>>>>>> + struct device *dev;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + try_module_get(THIS_MODULE);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There should be a module_put() in pru_rproc_put()...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ... and in the error path of this function.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> More comments to come tomorrow. I'm especially worried about this API racing
> >>>>>>> with a remote processor being removed or detached.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Looking at what is done in wkup_m3_ipc_probe(), it should be possible to call
> >>>>>> rproc_get_by_handle() here and that would make sure the remote processor doesn't
> >>>>>> go away before the end of the function.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> More comments to come...
> >>>>
> >>>> It is possible to call rproc_get_by_handle() here instead of
> >>>> __pru_get_proc(), but that would not provide multiple functionality.
> >>>>
> >>>> The API rproc_get_by_handle() returns rproc handle on success, and NULL on
> >>>> failure where as __pru_get_proc() returns ERR_PTR on failure which provides
> >>>> multiple functionality and opportunity for us to distinguish between
> >>>> multiple errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> So we have these three options.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. If we're using the API rproc_get_by_handle() and we want the multiple
> >>>> ERR_PTR on failure then we will need to change the API rproc_get_by_handle()
> >>>> and also all the functions that uses rproc_get_by_handle().
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not optimal.
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Keep the API rproc_get_by_handle() as it is. That will restrict us from
> >>>> using multiple ERR_PTR on different kinds of error.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not optimal.
> >>>
> >>>> 3. Instead of using rproc_get_by_handle(), keep using __pru_get_proc(). This
> >>>> will make sure we have the proper ERR_PTR to retrun for different kinds of
> >>>> errors.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Unacceptable for the reason I already stated.
> >>>
> >>>> Please let me know which option to continue with.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest building a wrapper that does everything you want around rproc_get_by_phandle().
>
> We can introduce a new API __rproc_get_by_phandle() similar to the API
> rproc_get_by_phandle(). The new API __rproc_get_by_phandle() will do all the
> functionality of getting the rproc. On success it will return rproc and on
> failure it will return the different ERR_PTR.
> If rproc is not probed yet, it will return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER).
>
> This will make sure that we're getting different error codes for different
> errors from pru_rproc_get().
>
> The old API rproc_get_by_handle() will invoke the new API. On success the new
> API will return rproc and the old API will also return rproc. On failure the
> new API will return different error codes while the old API will preserve it's
> nature and return NULL.
I meant to create a wrapper around rproc_get_by_handle() that is local
to pru_rproc.c. That way you can enact the behavior you want without
having to constrain others in this specific design.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> The API __rproc_get_by_handle will look like this.
>
> struct rproc *__rproc_get_by_handle(phandle phandle)
> {
> struct rproc *rproc = NULL, *r;
> struct device_node *np;
>
> np = of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle);
> if (!np)
> return NULL;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(r, &rproc_list, node) {
> if (r->dev.parent && r->dev.parent->of_node == np) {
> /*prevent underlying implementation from being removed */
> if (!try_module_get(r->dev.parent->driver->owner)) {
> dev_err(&r->dev, "can't get owner\n");
> break;
> }
>
> rproc = r;
> get_device(&rproc->dev);
> break;
> }
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> of_node_put(np);
>
> if(!rproc)
> return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>
> return rproc;
> }
>
> The API rproc_get_by_handle() will look like this.
>
> struct rproc *rproc_get_by_phandle(phandle phandle)
> {
> struct rproc *rproc = NULL;
>
> rproc = __rproc_get_by_handle(phandle);
>
> if(!rproc || IS_ERR(rproc))
> return NULL;
>
> return rproc;
> }
>
> This way in pru_rproc_get(), we'll get the rproc by phandle and we'll still
> return different error codes depending upon failure cases. We'll also be able
> to preserve the actual functionality of rproc_get_by_phandle() so that the
> other APIs using rproc_get_by_phandle() won't get affected.
>
> Please let me know if this looks good.
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure, I'll do that. I'll share this change in v6 of this patch series.
> >
> > I'm able to test the TI prueth driver from the ti-linux-5.10.y tree [1] on a
> > AM5749 cpu (custom board). But I need a more recent kernel (at least 5.15) to
> > support other devices recently added to the Linux kernel (wifi6 module and an
> > ethernet switch). Also it would be nice if this driver is finally merged in the
> > Linux kernel.
> >
> > Maybe I can help to test this series but I noticed it only provide the driver
> > for TI AM654x cpus [2]. Can you also provide patches for basic EMAC support with
> > the TI AM574x too? (I don't need advanced features like frame timestamping, HSR
> > etc).
> >
> > Also, what about patches present in the ti-linux-kernel tree and not included
> > this this series? Especially patches that modify the kernel network stack [3]
> > (net/rpmsg: add support for new rpmsg sockets). Is this new socket protocol
> > really needed?
> >
> > Notice the patch adding the rpmsg sockets [3] already conflict with the upstream
> > kernel since the AF_MCTP definition now use the value temporarly used by
> > AF_RPMSG [4].
> >
> > Can you send an updated version of the complete series?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel/log/?h=ti-linux-5.10.y
> >
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-remoteproc/20220406094358.7895-1-p-mohan@ti.com/
> >
> > [3]
> > https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel/commit/?h=ti-linux-5.10.y&id=f4b978a978c38149f712ddd137f12ed5fb914161
> >
> > [4]
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/?id=bc49d8169aa72295104f1558830c568efb946315
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Romain
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Danish
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Mathieu
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + rproc = __pru_rproc_get(np, index);
> >>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(rproc))
> >>>>>>>> + return rproc;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + pru = rproc->priv;
> >>>>>>>> + dev = &rproc->dev;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (pru->client_np) {
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> + put_device(dev);
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = np;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (pru_id)
> >>>>>>>> + *pru_id = pru->id;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + return rproc;
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pru_rproc_get);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>>> + * pru_rproc_put() - release the PRU rproc resource
> >>>>>>>> + * @rproc: the rproc resource to release
> >>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>> + * Releases the PRU rproc resource and makes it available to other
> >>>>>>>> + * users.
> >>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>> +void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + struct pru_rproc *pru;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(rproc) || !is_pru_rproc(rproc->dev.parent))
> >>>>>>>> + return;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + pru = rproc->priv;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (!pru->client_np) {
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> + return;
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = NULL;
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + put_device(&rproc->dev);
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pru_rproc_put);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> static inline u32 pru_debug_read_reg(struct pru_rproc *pru, unsigned int reg)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> return readl_relaxed(pru->mem_regions[PRU_IOMEM_DEBUG].va + reg);
> >>>>>>>> @@ -438,7 +563,7 @@ static void *pru_d_da_to_va(struct pru_rproc *pru, u32 da, size_t len)
> >>>>>>>> dram0 = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_DRAM0];
> >>>>>>>> dram1 = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_DRAM1];
> >>>>>>>> /* PRU1 has its local RAM addresses reversed */
> >>>>>>>> - if (pru->id == 1)
> >>>>>>>> + if (pru->id == PRUSS_PRU1)
> >>>>>>>> swap(dram0, dram1);
> >>>>>>>> shrd_ram = pruss->mem_regions[PRUSS_MEM_SHRD_RAM2];
> >>>>>>>> @@ -747,14 +872,14 @@ static int pru_rproc_set_id(struct pru_rproc *pru)
> >>>>>>>> case RTU0_IRAM_ADDR_MASK:
> >>>>>>>> fallthrough;
> >>>>>>>> case PRU0_IRAM_ADDR_MASK:
> >>>>>>>> - pru->id = 0;
> >>>>>>>> + pru->id = PRUSS_PRU0;
> >>>>>>>> break;
> >>>>>>>> case TX_PRU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK:
> >>>>>>>> fallthrough;
> >>>>>>>> case RTU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK:
> >>>>>>>> fallthrough;
> >>>>>>>> case PRU1_IRAM_ADDR_MASK:
> >>>>>>>> - pru->id = 1;
> >>>>>>>> + pru->id = PRUSS_PRU1;
> >>>>>>>> break;
> >>>>>>>> default:
> >>>>>>>> ret = -EINVAL;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -816,6 +941,8 @@ static int pru_rproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>>>>> pru->pruss = platform_get_drvdata(ppdev);
> >>>>>>>> pru->rproc = rproc;
> >>>>>>>> pru->fw_name = fw_name;
> >>>>>>>> + pru->client_np = NULL;
> >>>>>>>> + mutex_init(&pru->lock);
> >>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(mem_names); i++) {
> >>>>>>>> res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM,
> >>>>>>>> @@ -903,7 +1030,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pru_rproc_match);
> >>>>>>>> static struct platform_driver pru_rproc_driver = {
> >>>>>>>> .driver = {
> >>>>>>>> - .name = "pru-rproc",
> >>>>>>>> + .name = PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME,
> >>>>>>>> .of_match_table = pru_rproc_match,
> >>>>>>>> .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
> >>>>>>>> },
> >>>>>>>> @@ -915,5 +1042,6 @@ module_platform_driver(pru_rproc_driver);
> >>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>");
> >>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Andrew F. Davis <afd at ti.com>");
> >>>>>>>> MODULE_AUTHOR("Grzegorz Jaszczyk <grzegorz.jaszczyk at linaro.org>");
> >>>>>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Puranjay Mohan <p-mohan at ti.com>");
> >>>>>>>> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PRU-ICSS Remote Processor Driver");
> >>>>>>>> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pruss.h b/include/linux/pruss.h
> >>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>>>> index 000000000000..fdc719b43db0
> >>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pruss.h
> >>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> >>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> >>>>>>>> +/**
> >>>>>>>> + * PRU-ICSS Subsystem user interfaces
> >>>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2022 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com
> >>>>>>>> + * Suman Anna <s-anna at ti.com>
> >>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#ifndef __LINUX_PRUSS_H
> >>>>>>>> +#define __LINUX_PRUSS_H
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#include <linux/device.h>
> >>>>>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#define PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME "pru-rproc"
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>>>> + * enum pruss_pru_id - PRU core identifiers
> >>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>> +enum pruss_pru_id {
> >>>>>>>> + PRUSS_PRU0 = 0,
> >>>>>>>> + PRUSS_PRU1,
> >>>>>>>> + PRUSS_NUM_PRUS,
> >>>>>>>> +};
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +struct device_node;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PRU_REMOTEPROC)
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +struct rproc *pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index,
> >>>>>>>> + enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id);
> >>>>>>>> +void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#else
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +static inline struct rproc *
> >>>>>>>> +pru_rproc_get(struct device_node *np, int index, enum pruss_pru_id *pru_id)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOPNOTSUPP);
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +static inline void pru_rproc_put(struct rproc *rproc) { }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PRU_REMOTEPROC */
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +static inline bool is_pru_rproc(struct device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + const char *drv_name = dev_driver_string(dev);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + if (strncmp(drv_name, PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME, sizeof(PRU_RPROC_DRVNAME)))
> >>>>>>>> + return false;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + return true;
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> +#endif /* __LINUX_PRUSS_H */
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> 2.17.1
> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> >
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list