Hi Tzung-Bi,
Thanks for your suggestions.
On Wed, 2021-11-24 at 18:25 +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 04:45:14PM +0800, allen-kh.cheng wrote:
drivers/firmware/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/firmware/Makefile | 1 + drivers/firmware/mediatek/Kconfig | 10 ++ drivers/firmware/mediatek/Makefile | 2 + drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++ .../linux/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.h | 72 ++++++++++ 6 files changed, 216 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c create mode 100644 include/linux/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.h
The patch should move before the 2nd patch in the series as the 2nd patch uses mtk-adsp-ipc.h.
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c b/drivers/firmware/mediatek/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
[...]
+int adsp_ipc_send(struct mtk_adsp_ipc *ipc, unsigned int idx, uint32_t op) +{
- struct mtk_adsp_chan *dsp_chan = &ipc->chans[idx];
- struct adsp_mbox_ch_info *ch_info = dsp_chan->ch->con_priv;
- int ret;
- if (idx >= MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM)
return -EINVAL;If idx >= MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM, the invalid memory access has occurred at beginning of the function.
+static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) +{
[...]
- device_set_of_node_from_dev(&pdev->dev, pdev->dev.parent);
Why does it need to call device_set_of_node_from_dev()?
The original design regards mt8195 sof of_node as a parent deivce of mtk-adsp-ipc.
device_set_of_node_from_dev will set of_node_reuse flag to prevent driver from attempting to claim any mbox ipc resources already claimed by the sof dsp device.
- for (i = 0; i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM; i++) {
chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "mbox%d", i);if (!chan_name)return -ENOMEM;dsp_chan = &dsp_ipc->chans[i];cl = &dsp_chan->cl;cl->dev = dev->parent;cl->tx_block = false;cl->knows_txdone = false;cl->tx_prepare = NULL;cl->rx_callback = adsp_ipc_recv;dsp_chan->ipc = dsp_ipc;dsp_chan->idx = i;dsp_chan->ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl,chan_name);
if (IS_ERR(dsp_chan->ch)) {ret = PTR_ERR(dsp_chan->ch);if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)dev_err(dev, "Failed to request mboxchan %d ret %d\n",
i, ret);If ret == -EPROBE_DEFER, wouldn't it need to return -EPROBE_DEFER? It doesn't retry later if -EPROBE_DEFER.
If ret != -EPROBE_DEFER, it will show a error message then goto out.
If ret == -EPROBE_DEFER, probe funcation also will goto out.
Both of them will return ret. will not go to next round.
Thanks, Allen