Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752498AbbGULqt (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:46:49 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:36295 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751131AbbGULqr (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:46:47 -0400 Message-ID: <55AE3124.4010705@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:46:44 +0300 From: Georgi Djakov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bjorn Andersson CC: bjorn@kryo.se, Kumar Gala , Andy Gross , David Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, Jeffrey Hugo , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] soc: qcom: Add Shared Memory Driver References: <1435355419-23602-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1435355419-23602-5-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <559BD809.3060003@linaro.org> <20150713222729.GC15178@usrtlx11787.corpusers.net> In-Reply-To: <20150713222729.GC15178@usrtlx11787.corpusers.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3385 Lines: 101 On 07/14/2015 01:27 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 07 Jul 06:45 PDT 2015, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >> Hi Bjorn, >> Thank you for this patchset! Some nits and a question below. >> > > Thank you! > >> On 06/27/2015 12:50 AM, bjorn@kryo.se wrote: >>> From: Bjorn Andersson >>> >>> This adds the Qualcomm Shared Memory Driver (SMD) providing >>> communication channels to remote processors, ontop of SMEM. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson [..] >> [...] >>> +static int __init qcom_smd_init(void) >>> +{ >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + ret = bus_register(&qcom_smd_bus); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + pr_err("failed to register smd bus: %d\n", ret); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return platform_driver_register(&qcom_smd_driver); >>> +} >>> +arch_initcall(qcom_smd_init); >>> + >>> +static void __exit qcom_smd_exit(void) >>> +{ >>> + platform_driver_unregister(&qcom_smd_driver); >>> + bus_unregister(&qcom_smd_bus); >>> +} >>> +module_exit(qcom_smd_exit); >>> + >> [...] >>> +/** >>> + * struct qcom_smd_driver - smd driver struct >>> + * @driver: underlying device driver >>> + * @probe: invoked when the smd channel is found >>> + * @remove: invoked when the smd channel is closed >>> + * @callback: invoked when an inbound message is received on the channel, >>> + * should return 0 on success or -EBUSY if the data cannot be >>> + * consumed at this time >>> + */ >>> +struct qcom_smd_driver { >>> + struct device_driver driver; >>> + int (*probe)(struct qcom_smd_device *dev); >>> + void (*remove)(struct qcom_smd_device *dev); >>> + int (*callback)(struct qcom_smd_device *, const void *, size_t); >>> +}; >>> + >>> +int qcom_smd_driver_register(struct qcom_smd_driver *drv); >>> +void qcom_smd_driver_unregister(struct qcom_smd_driver *drv); >>> + >>> +#define module_qcom_smd_driver(__smd_driver) \ >>> + module_driver(__smd_driver, qcom_smd_driver_register, \ >>> + qcom_smd_driver_unregister) >>> + >> >> This comment is mostly related to your RPM over SMD driver patch, as >> i have a RPM clock driver based on it. The RPM clock driver registers >> some fundamental stuff like XO and i had to hack smd-rpm to probe >> earlier, so that most other drivers can initialize. So i was wondering, >> what if we register the drivers on the bus earlier? What do you think? >> > > My only concern would be that if we're calling > qcom_smd_driver_register() before the smd arch_initcall has registered > the bus it will fail. > Maybe we can use core/postcore_initcall for smd, and then arch_initcall for smd-rpm? > Part of this I see no problem with modifying the rpm driver to register > earlier - and it would be good to have those regulators earlier as > well... Booting with initcall_debug shows me that most busses are registered at postcore_initcall - like spmi, i2c, spi etc. > I've intentionally not done anything about this, because it's helped to > smoke out a bunch of EPROBE_DEFER issues for me already, but longer term > it's not okay for all our drivers to fail 2-3 times before the > regulators are up... I agree. Thanks! BR, Georgi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/