From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iZ9jm-0004II-FO for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:28:51 +0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 09:28:48 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20191125082848.2rkmumxerinj4oa5@pengutronix.de> References: <20191121084005.683-1-ahmad@a3f.at> <20191121084005.683-3-ahmad@a3f.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191121084005.683-3-ahmad@a3f.at> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] remoteproc: add .stop device parameter for stopping remote processor To: Ahmad Fatoum Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:40:05AM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Both the STM32 and i.MX7 remote proc drivers populate the .stop member > in the struct rproc, but it's not used anywhere. The .stop member in struct rproc is introduced in this patch. > The firmware API is not > really fitting to 'unload' firmware. Add instead a device parameter to > stop a remote processor, e.g. remoteproc0.stop=1. This is similar to the > probe command used with MMCs. > > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum > --- > drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- > include/linux/remoteproc.h | 2 ++ > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > index 8a28c1bafc1b..e031640bc7a0 100644 > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c > @@ -101,6 +101,8 @@ static int rproc_firmware_finish(struct firmware_handler *fh) > fw.size = rproc->fw_buf_ofs; > > ret = rproc_start(rproc, &fw); > + if (ret == 0) > + rproc->stop = PARAM_TRISTATE_FALSE; Can we use positive logic here? "Status Stopped is false" is harder to read than just "running" or "started". > kfree(rproc->fw_buf); > > @@ -120,6 +122,19 @@ static int rproc_register_dev(struct rproc *rproc, const char *alias) > return register_device(&rproc->dev); > } > > +static int rproc_set_stop(struct param_d *param, void *priv) > +{ > + struct rproc *rproc = priv; > + int (*stop)(struct rproc *); > + > + stop = rproc->ops->stop; > + > + if (!stop) > + return -ENOSYS; > + > + return stop(rproc); > +} I would assume that when I can stop the remote processor with this parameter I should be able to start it here as well, no? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox