On 11/20/2022 6:19 AM, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
Le 18/11/2022 à 19:22, Melody Olvera a écrit :
Add interconnect provider driver for Qualcomm QDU1000 and QRU1000
platforms.
Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera-jfJNa2p1gH1BDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/interconnect/qcom/Kconfig | 9 +
drivers/interconnect/qcom/Makefile | 2 +
drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c | 1079 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h | 95 +++
4 files changed, 1185 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.c
create mode 100644 drivers/interconnect/qcom/qdu1000.h
[...]
+static int qnoc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = qcom_icc_rpmh_probe(pdev);
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register ICC provider\n");
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int qnoc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct qcom_icc_provider *qp = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+
+ icc_nodes_remove(&qp->provider);
+ icc_provider_del(&qp->provider);
qcom_icc_rpmh_remove()?
(more future proof, less verbose and more consistent with qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() in the probe)
CJ
Good call. Does it make sense to just set the .probe and .remove functions as
qcom_icc_rpmh_probe() and qcom_icc_rpmh_remove(), respectively? Probe function
is just reporting if qcom_icc_rpmh_probe fails.
Thanks,
Melody
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static const struct of_device_id qnoc_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-clk-virt",
+ .data = &qdu1000_clk_virt
+ },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-gem-noc",
+ .data = &qdu1000_gem_noc
+ },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-mc-virt",
+ .data = &qdu1000_mc_virt
+ },
+ { .compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-system-noc",
+ .data = &qdu1000_system_noc
+ },
+ { }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qnoc_of_match);
+
+static struct platform_driver qnoc_driver = {
+ .probe = qnoc_probe,
+ .remove = qnoc_remove,
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "qnoc-qdu1000",
+ .of_match_table = qnoc_of_match,
+ },
+};
[...]