On Wed, 13 Jul 2016, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 05 May 06:29 PDT 2016, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> Lee,
>
> I ran into this topic again while looking into some unrelated things.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> > +struct rproc *of_rproc_byindex(struct device_node *np, int index)
> > +{
> > + struct rproc *rproc;
> > + struct device_node *rproc_node;
> > + struct platform_device *pdev;
> > + struct klist_iter i;
> > +
> > + if (index < 0)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > +
> > + rproc_node = of_parse_phandle(np, "rprocs", index);
> > + if (!rproc_node)
>
> As I stated before I would like for you to use the existing rproc_list,
> as done in rproc_get_by_phandle() today.
>
> But as you resend this patch, could you please make this check fallback
> to also checking for "ti,rproc", then simply drop the existing
> rproc_get_by_phandle() and change the call to
> of_rproc_byindex(dev->of_node, 0) in wkup_m3_ipc.c?
>
> That way we're backwards compatible with the TI wakeup M3, without
> having to maintain the then non-standard generic rproc phandle resolver.
I started working on this yesterday. Should be with you soon.
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +
> > + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(rproc_node);
> > + if (!pdev)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +
> > + klist_iter_init(&rprocs, &i);
> > + while ((rproc = next_rproc(&i)) != NULL)
> > + if (rproc->dev.parent == &pdev->dev)
> > + break;
> > + klist_iter_exit(&i);
> > +
> > + return rproc;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_rproc_byindex);
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
