On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 08:33:17AM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> > R5 is included in Xilinx Zynq UltraScale MPSoC so by adding this
> > remotproc driver, we can boot the R5 sub-system in different
> > configurations.
> >
> > Acked-by: Stefano Stabellini <[email protected]>
> > Acked-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Radhey Shyam Pandey <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Wendy Liang <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ed Mooring <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wu <[email protected]>
> > Tested-by: Ben Levinsky <[email protected]>
[...]
> > +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + int ret, i = 0;
> > + u32 *lockstep_mode;
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct device_node *nc;
> > + struct zynqmp_r5_pdata *pdata;
> > +
> > + pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + lockstep_mode = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(u32 *), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!pdata || !lockstep_mode)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pdata);
>
> As far as I can tell the above, along with allocating memory for @pdata, is
> not
> needed since zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_remove() uses rpus[].
>
> I have only reviewed the _probe() function and already encountered a fair
> amount
> of fundemantal errors. As such I will stop my review here. I will need to
> see a
> reviewed-by tag (on the mailing list) by Stephano or Michal before reviewing
> the
> next set.
Let me take this opportunity to say that my Acked-by on this version of
the series was an unintentional miscommunication: I didn't give my
Acked-by as I haven't even read the patches yet.
I'll circle back with Michal and we'll make sure for either of us to do
a round of public reviews on the next version.
