Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
To:     bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, ohad@wizery.com
Cc:     loic.pallardy@st.com, arnaud.pouliquen@st.com, s-anna@ti.com,
        linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 02/14] remoteproc: Introduce function rproc_alloc_internals()
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:01:23 -0600
Message-Id: <20200424200135.28825-3-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200424200135.28825-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
References: <20200424200135.28825-1-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
managed by another entity there is no point in allocating memory for
a firmware name since it will never be used.  The same goes for a core
set of operations.

As such introduce function rproc_alloc_internals() to decide if the
allocation of a firmware name and the core operations need to be done.
That way rproc_alloc() can be kept as clean as possible.

Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
index 448262470fc7..1b4756909584 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
@@ -2076,6 +2076,30 @@ static int rproc_alloc_ops(struct rproc *rproc, const struct rproc_ops *ops)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int rproc_alloc_internals(struct rproc *rproc,
+				 const struct rproc_ops *ops,
+				 const char *name, const char *firmware)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * In scenarios where the remote processor's lifecycle is entirely
+	 * managed by another entity there is no point in carrying a set
+	 * of operations that will never be used.
+	 *
+	 * And since no firmware will ever be loaded, there is no point in
+	 * allocating memory for it either.
+	 */
+	if (!ops)
+		return 0;
+
+	ret = rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	return rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops);
+}
+
 /**
  * rproc_alloc() - allocate a remote processor handle
  * @dev: the underlying device
@@ -2105,7 +2129,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 {
 	struct rproc *rproc;
 
-	if (!dev || !name || !ops)
+	if (!dev || !name)
 		return NULL;
 
 	rproc = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rproc) + len, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -2128,10 +2152,7 @@ struct rproc *rproc_alloc(struct device *dev, const char *name,
 	if (!rproc->name)
 		goto put_device;
 
-	if (rproc_alloc_firmware(rproc, name, firmware))
-		goto put_device;
-
-	if (rproc_alloc_ops(rproc, ops))
+	if (rproc_alloc_internals(rproc, ops, name, firmware))
 		goto put_device;
 
 	/* Assign a unique device index and name */
-- 
2.20.1