diff mbox

[GIT,PULL] qcom SoC changes for v4.1

Message ID 551D9BF6.2070502@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Stephen Boyd April 2, 2015, 7:43 p.m. UTC
On 04/02/15 12:25, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:37 AM, Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Andy, Kumar,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> Andy Gross (1):
>>>      soc: qcom: gsbi: Add support for ADM CRCI muxing
>> this commit seems to break the boot on IFC6410, it was initially
>> reported on kernelci.org, see report and bootlog [1].
>>
>> running git bisect led me to:
>>
>> e5fdad68d47ed344832b7ca4e18b2e9708d8141e is the first bad commit
>> commit e5fdad68d47ed344832b7ca4e18b2e9708d8141e
>> Author: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
>> Date:   Mon Feb 9 16:01:06 2015 -0600
>>
>>    soc: qcom: gsbi: Add support for ADM CRCI muxing
>>
>>    This patch adds automatic configuration for the ADM CRCI muxing required to
>>    support DMA operations for GSBI clients.  The GSBI mode and
>> instance determine
>>    the correct TCSR ADM CRCI MUX value that must be programmed so that the DMA
>>    works properly.
>>
>>    Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
>>    Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
>>
>>
>> [1] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/arm-soc/kernel/v4.0-rc4-354-ga0690e6586df/
> I think we need to associated DT updates.
>
>

What about this patch squashed on top? Just guessing but I suspect we
don't care about cell-index if we're not doing the tcsr stuff. Also, I
imagine we could get rid of cell-index entirely if we matched against
the address of the gsbi instead.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>

----8<-----

Comments

Nicolas Dechesne April 2, 2015, 7:47 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> What about this patch squashed on top? Just guessing but I suspect we
> don't care about cell-index if we're not doing the tcsr stuff. Also, I
> imagine we could get rid of cell-index entirely if we matched against
> the address of the gsbi instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
>
> ----8<-----
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
> index 09c669e70d63..ac7d71b6527d 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
> @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static int gsbi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>         void __iomem *base;
>         struct gsbi_info *gsbi;
>         int i;
> -       u32 mask, gsbi_num;
> +       u32 mask, gsbi_num = 0;
>         const struct crci_config *config = NULL;
>
>         gsbi = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*gsbi), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -166,16 +166,19 @@ static int gsbi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
>                         of_node_put(tcsr_node);
>                 }
> -       }
>
> -       if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cell-index", &gsbi_num)) {
> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "missing cell-index\n");
> -               return -EINVAL;
> -       }
> +               if (config) {
> +                       if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cell-index", &gsbi_num)) {
> +                               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "missing cell-index\n");
> +                               return -EINVAL;
> +                       }
> +
> +                       if (gsbi_num < 1 || gsbi_num > MAX_GSBI) {
> +                               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid cell-index\n");
> +                               return -EINVAL;
> +                       }
> +               }
>
> -       if (gsbi_num < 1 || gsbi_num > MAX_GSBI) {
> -               dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid cell-index\n");
> -               return -EINVAL;
>         }
>
>         if (of_property_read_u32(node, "qcom,mode", &gsbi->mode)) {


I think it would work, i cannot test right now, i can do it tomorrow
if you need it, but that's pretty much how i tested earlier today (i
had commented out the 2 statements you are putting moving here in the
new if statement.

I did also test with the associated DT patches, and it worked as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Andy Gross April 3, 2015, 4:22 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 12:43:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/02/15 12:25, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2015, at 3:37 AM, Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.dechesne@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Andy, Kumar,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>> Andy Gross (1):
> >>>      soc: qcom: gsbi: Add support for ADM CRCI muxing
> >> this commit seems to break the boot on IFC6410, it was initially
> >> reported on kernelci.org, see report and bootlog [1].
> >>
> >> running git bisect led me to:
> >>
> >> e5fdad68d47ed344832b7ca4e18b2e9708d8141e is the first bad commit
> >> commit e5fdad68d47ed344832b7ca4e18b2e9708d8141e
> >> Author: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
> >> Date:   Mon Feb 9 16:01:06 2015 -0600
> >>
> >>    soc: qcom: gsbi: Add support for ADM CRCI muxing
> >>
> >>    This patch adds automatic configuration for the ADM CRCI muxing required to
> >>    support DMA operations for GSBI clients.  The GSBI mode and
> >> instance determine
> >>    the correct TCSR ADM CRCI MUX value that must be programmed so that the DMA
> >>    works properly.
> >>
> >>    Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
> >>    Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/arm-soc/kernel/v4.0-rc4-354-ga0690e6586df/
> > I think we need to associated DT updates.
> >
> >
> 
> What about this patch squashed on top? Just guessing but I suspect we
> don't care about cell-index if we're not doing the tcsr stuff. Also, I
> imagine we could get rid of cell-index entirely if we matched against
> the address of the gsbi instead.

Except that the GSBI5 base address changes from chip to chip.
Stephen Boyd April 3, 2015, 6:40 p.m. UTC | #3
On 04/03, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 12:43:50PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 04/02/15 12:25, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > >> [1] http://kernelci.org/boot/all/job/arm-soc/kernel/v4.0-rc4-354-ga0690e6586df/
> > > I think we need to associated DT updates.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > What about this patch squashed on top? Just guessing but I suspect we
> > don't care about cell-index if we're not doing the tcsr stuff. Also, I
> > imagine we could get rid of cell-index entirely if we matched against
> > the address of the gsbi instead.
> 
> Except that the GSBI5 base address changes from chip to chip.
> 
> 

Yep, for the cell-index removal part I was thinking we would make
another table per SoC like we already have for the TCSR part. The
table would map the physical address to the GSBI number.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
index 09c669e70d63..ac7d71b6527d 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/qcom_gsbi.c
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@  static int gsbi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	void __iomem *base;
 	struct gsbi_info *gsbi;
 	int i;
-	u32 mask, gsbi_num;
+	u32 mask, gsbi_num = 0;
 	const struct crci_config *config = NULL;
 
 	gsbi = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*gsbi), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -166,16 +166,19 @@  static int gsbi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 			of_node_put(tcsr_node);
 		}
-	}
 
-	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cell-index", &gsbi_num)) {
-		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "missing cell-index\n");
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
+		if (config) {
+			if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cell-index", &gsbi_num)) {
+				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "missing cell-index\n");
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
+
+			if (gsbi_num < 1 || gsbi_num > MAX_GSBI) {
+				dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid cell-index\n");
+				return -EINVAL;
+			}
+		}
 
-	if (gsbi_num < 1 || gsbi_num > MAX_GSBI) {
-		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "invalid cell-index\n");
-		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
 	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "qcom,mode", &gsbi->mode)) {