[Sound-open-firmware] [RFC 12/12] rpmsg: add a device ID to also bind to the ADSP device

[Mathieu Poirier]

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:02:27PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Mathieu,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 10:17:57AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:46:59AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > Hi Mathieu,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 02:01:56PM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:37:22AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > > > > The ADSP device uses the RPMsg API to connect vhost and VirtIO SOF
> > > > > Audio DSP drivers on KVM host and guest.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c | 1 +
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > index f3bd050..ebe3f19 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/virtio_rpmsg_bus.c
> > > > > @@ -949,6 +949,7 @@ static void rpmsg_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> > > > >  
> > > > >  static struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = {
> > > > >  	{ VIRTIO_ID_RPMSG, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
> > > > > +	{ VIRTIO_ID_ADSP, VIRTIO_DEV_ANY_ID },
> > > > 
> > > > I am fine with this patch but won't add an RB because of the (many) checkpatch
> > > > errors.  Based on the comment I made on the previous set seeing those was
> > > > unexpected.
> > > 
> > > Are you using "--strict?" Sorry, I don't see any checkpatch errors, only warnings. 
> > 
> > No, plane checkpatch on the rproc-next branch.
> > 
> > > Most of them are "over 80 characters" which as we now know is no more an issue,
> > 
> > There is a thread discussing the matter but I have not seen a clear resolution
> > yet.
> 
> I think the resolution is pretty clear as defined by Linus, but maybe it has changed 
> again since I last checked.
> 
> > > I just haven't updated my tree yet. Most others are really minor IMHO. Maybe one
> > 
> > Minor or not, if checkpatch complains then it is important enough to address.  I
> > am willing to overlook the lines over 80 characters but everything else needs to
> > be dealt with.
> 
> Sure, checkpatch should be run before each patch submission and whatever it reports 
> should be considered. As Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst clearly 
> states:
> 
> "Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
> (scripts/checkpatch.pl).  Note, though, that the style checker should be
> viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment.  If your code
> looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone."
> 
> So, yes, I checked all what checkepatch reported and used my judgement to decide 
> which recommendations to take and which to ignore.

I will let Michael and friends decide how to handle checkpatch warnings in the
vhost subsystem but as far as remoteproc/rpmsg are concerned, I will not review
patches that trigger warnings.

There is a patch in linux-next that deprecates warnings for lines over 80
characters, so those are no longer a problem.

> 
> Thanks
> Guennadi
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Mathieu
> >  
> > > of them I actually would want to fix - using "help" instead of "---help---" in 
> > > Kconfig. What errors are you seeing in your checks?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Guennadi
> > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mathieu
> > > > 
> > > > >  	{ 0 },
> > > > >  };
> > > > >  
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > 1.9.3
> > > > >