[PATCH 03/26] remoteproc: k3-r5: remove sysfw PM calls if not supported

[Lokesh Vutla]

On 10/11/20 2:35 pm, Tero Kristo wrote:
> With the sysfw rearch, sysfw PM calls are no longer available from SPL
> level. To properly support this, remove the is_on checks and the reset
> assertion from the R5 remoteproc driver as these are not supported.
> Attempting to access unavailable services will cause the device to hang.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo at ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
> index 9332a63d21..b2902e7fd3 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5f_rproc.c
> @@ -781,7 +781,9 @@ static int k3_r5f_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>  {
>  	struct k3_r5f_cluster *cluster = dev_get_priv(dev->parent);
>  	struct k3_r5f_core *core = dev_get_priv(dev);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CLK_TI_SCI

Since we are checking for device state, can you make this guard under power
domain instead of clock?

>  	bool r_state;
> +#endif
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> @@ -804,6 +806,7 @@ static int k3_r5f_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CLK_TI_SCI

Can you also add a comment here on why we are doing this?

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

>  	ret = core->tsp.sci->ops.dev_ops.is_on(core->tsp.sci, core->tsp.dev_id,
>  					       &r_state, &core->in_use);
>  	if (ret)
> @@ -817,6 +820,7 @@ static int k3_r5f_probe(struct udevice *dev)
>  
>  	/* Make sure Local reset is asserted. Redundant? */
>  	reset_assert(&core->reset);
> +#endif
>  
>  	ret = k3_r5f_rproc_configure(core);
>  	if (ret) {
>