| Message ID | 1457920282-14823-2-git-send-email-jun.nie@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Jun Nie wrote: > @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (!uap) > return -ENOMEM; > > + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); > + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) > + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); > + I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI platform anyway. Where did it come from?
2016-03-22 4:39 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: > Jun Nie wrote: >> >> @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> if (!uap) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); >> + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >> + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >> + > > > I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI > platform anyway. Where did it come from? > Is it OK to move to device tree part, I mean if (pdev->dev.of_node) clause? It is part of my patch, I am not aware ACPI requirement on this. Jun > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora > Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.
Jun Nie wrote: > 2016-03-22 4:39 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: >> Jun Nie wrote: >>> >>> @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct >>> platform_device *pdev) >>> if (!uap) >>> return -ENOMEM; >>> >>> + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); >>> + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >>> + >> >> >> I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI >> platform anyway. Where did it come from? >> > Is it OK to move to device tree part, I mean if (pdev->dev.of_node) > clause? It is part of my patch, I am not aware ACPI requirement on > this. But this is not restricted to the ZTE platform. Your patch says, "compete support to ZTE uart" (maybe you should reword that to "add support for ZTE UARTs"). However, this change affects ALL platforms. If you move it to the device tree part, it will affect ALL device tree platforms. That's not "adding ZTE support".
2016-03-22 9:55 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: > Jun Nie wrote: >> >> 2016-03-22 4:39 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: >>> >>> Jun Nie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> if (!uap) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>> >>>> + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >>>> + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >>>> + >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI >>> platform anyway. Where did it come from? >>> >> Is it OK to move to device tree part, I mean if (pdev->dev.of_node) >> clause? It is part of my patch, I am not aware ACPI requirement on >> this. > > > But this is not restricted to the ZTE platform. Your patch says, "compete > support to ZTE uart" (maybe you should reword that to "add support for ZTE > UARTs"). However, this change affects ALL platforms. If you move it to the > device tree part, it will affect ALL device tree platforms. That's not > "adding ZTE support". That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock enabling. For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I am wrong. Jun > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
Jun Nie wrote: > That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for > the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock > enabling. But why do you need to enable the clock? The pl011 driver works fine for every platform without your patch. If the ZTE platform needs to call clk_get() in order to work, than that is something different about your platform. > For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree > my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I > am wrong. I think you need to create a separate patch that adds that call, and make sure it's tested by other platforms before it gets accepted.
2016-03-22 10:06 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: > Jun Nie wrote: >> >> That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for >> the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock >> enabling. > > > But why do you need to enable the clock? The pl011 driver works fine for > every platform without your patch. If the ZTE platform needs to call > clk_get() in order to work, than that is something different about your > platform. ARM/ST pl011 is amba device and use pl011_probe() for initialization, which call these clock enabling code for every device. You introduced platform device driver entry for pl011 and only sbsa use platform device probe method currently. I am trying to reuse this probe function, so need to add clock enabling code in this function. If you did not find any issue in sbsa device tree case, I guess the clock is always enabled. For mobile platform, clock is auto gated for power saving in most of cases. > >> For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree >> my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I >> am wrong. > > > I think you need to create a separate patch that adds that call, and make > sure it's tested by other platforms before it gets accepted. These code only impact sbsa device as only sbsa device is initialized via platform driver entry. So only your flavor is need for testing the code. Thanks! :-) Jun > > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
On 22 March 2016 at 02:17, Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> wrote: > 2016-03-22 10:06 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: >> Jun Nie wrote: >>> >>> That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for >>> the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock >>> enabling. >> >> >> But why do you need to enable the clock? The pl011 driver works fine for >> every platform without your patch. If the ZTE platform needs to call >> clk_get() in order to work, than that is something different about your >> platform. > > ARM/ST pl011 is amba device and use pl011_probe() for initialization, > which call these clock enabling code for every device. You introduced > platform device driver entry for pl011 and only sbsa use platform > device probe method currently. I am trying to reuse this probe > function, so need to add clock enabling code in this function. > > If you did not find any issue in sbsa device tree case, I guess the > clock is always enabled. For mobile platform, clock is auto gated for > power saving in most of cases. > >> >>> For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree >>> my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I >>> am wrong. >> >> >> I think you need to create a separate patch that adds that call, and make >> sure it's tested by other platforms before it gets accepted. > > These code only impact sbsa device as only sbsa device is initialized > via platform driver entry. So only your flavor is need for testing the > code. Thanks! :-) > In SBSA mode the UART clock is always enabled by the firmware and there are no baud rate registers so we don't need to know the value of the clock. In ACPI there is no method to represent the clock. So if you add lines to unconditionally require a clock you will break SBSA mode in ACPI. Graeme
2016-03-22 16:20 GMT+08:00 G Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>: > On 22 March 2016 at 02:17, Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> wrote: >> 2016-03-22 10:06 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: >>> Jun Nie wrote: >>>> >>>> That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for >>>> the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock >>>> enabling. >>> >>> >>> But why do you need to enable the clock? The pl011 driver works fine for >>> every platform without your patch. If the ZTE platform needs to call >>> clk_get() in order to work, than that is something different about your >>> platform. >> >> ARM/ST pl011 is amba device and use pl011_probe() for initialization, >> which call these clock enabling code for every device. You introduced >> platform device driver entry for pl011 and only sbsa use platform >> device probe method currently. I am trying to reuse this probe >> function, so need to add clock enabling code in this function. >> >> If you did not find any issue in sbsa device tree case, I guess the >> clock is always enabled. For mobile platform, clock is auto gated for >> power saving in most of cases. >> >>> >>>> For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree >>>> my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I >>>> am wrong. >>> >>> >>> I think you need to create a separate patch that adds that call, and make >>> sure it's tested by other platforms before it gets accepted. >> >> These code only impact sbsa device as only sbsa device is initialized >> via platform driver entry. So only your flavor is need for testing the >> code. Thanks! :-) >> > In SBSA mode the UART clock is always enabled by the firmware and > there are no baud rate registers so we don't need to know the value of > the clock. In ACPI there is no method to represent the clock. So if > you add lines to unconditionally require a clock you will break SBSA > mode in ACPI. > > Graeme Right, Timur also already point out breakage of ACPI case. So I plan to move clocking enabling code to device tree case handling. Do you still have any other concern? Jun
On 22 March 2016 at 08:44, Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> wrote: > 2016-03-22 16:20 GMT+08:00 G Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>: >> On 22 March 2016 at 02:17, Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> wrote: >>> 2016-03-22 10:06 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>: >>>> Jun Nie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for >>>>> the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock >>>>> enabling. >>>> >>>> >>>> But why do you need to enable the clock? The pl011 driver works fine for >>>> every platform without your patch. If the ZTE platform needs to call >>>> clk_get() in order to work, than that is something different about your >>>> platform. >>> >>> ARM/ST pl011 is amba device and use pl011_probe() for initialization, >>> which call these clock enabling code for every device. You introduced >>> platform device driver entry for pl011 and only sbsa use platform >>> device probe method currently. I am trying to reuse this probe >>> function, so need to add clock enabling code in this function. >>> >>> If you did not find any issue in sbsa device tree case, I guess the >>> clock is always enabled. For mobile platform, clock is auto gated for >>> power saving in most of cases. >>> >>>> >>>>> For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree >>>>> my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I >>>>> am wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think you need to create a separate patch that adds that call, and make >>>> sure it's tested by other platforms before it gets accepted. >>> >>> These code only impact sbsa device as only sbsa device is initialized >>> via platform driver entry. So only your flavor is need for testing the >>> code. Thanks! :-) >>> >> In SBSA mode the UART clock is always enabled by the firmware and >> there are no baud rate registers so we don't need to know the value of >> the clock. In ACPI there is no method to represent the clock. So if >> you add lines to unconditionally require a clock you will break SBSA >> mode in ACPI. >> >> Graeme > > Right, Timur also already point out breakage of ACPI case. So I plan > to move clocking enabling code to device tree case handling. Do you > still have any other concern? > No, I was just making sure ACPI case was clear because it didn't look so from earlier comments. Graeme
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c index 2d1917e..0a39f13 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c @@ -97,6 +97,10 @@ struct vendor_data { const u16 *reg_offset; const struct uart_ops *uart_pops; unsigned int ifls; + unsigned int fr_busy; + unsigned int fr_dsr; + unsigned int fr_cts; + unsigned int fr_ri; bool access_32b; bool oversampling; bool dma_threshold; @@ -115,6 +119,10 @@ static unsigned int get_fifosize_arm(struct amba_device *dev) static struct vendor_data vendor_arm = { .reg_offset = pl011_std_offsets, .ifls = UART011_IFLS_RX4_8|UART011_IFLS_TX4_8, + .fr_busy = UART01x_FR_BUSY, + .fr_dsr = UART01x_FR_DSR, + .fr_cts = UART01x_FR_CTS, + .fr_ri = UART011_FR_RI, .oversampling = false, .dma_threshold = false, .cts_event_workaround = false, @@ -130,6 +138,10 @@ static unsigned int get_fifosize_sbsa(struct amba_device *dev) static struct vendor_data vendor_sbsa = { .reg_offset = pl011_std_offsets, + .fr_busy = UART01x_FR_BUSY, + .fr_dsr = UART01x_FR_DSR, + .fr_cts = UART01x_FR_CTS, + .fr_ri = UART011_FR_RI, .uart_pops = &sbsa_uart_pops, .oversampling = false, .dma_threshold = false, @@ -174,6 +186,10 @@ static unsigned int get_fifosize_st(struct amba_device *dev) static struct vendor_data vendor_st = { .reg_offset = pl011_st_offsets, .ifls = UART011_IFLS_RX_HALF|UART011_IFLS_TX_HALF, + .fr_busy = UART01x_FR_BUSY, + .fr_dsr = UART01x_FR_DSR, + .fr_cts = UART01x_FR_CTS, + .fr_ri = UART011_FR_RI, .oversampling = true, .dma_threshold = true, .cts_event_workaround = true, @@ -198,12 +214,26 @@ static const u16 pl011_zte_offsets[REG_ARRAY_SIZE] = { [REG_DMACR] = ZX_UART011_DMACR, }; +static unsigned int get_fifosize_zte(struct amba_device *dev) +{ + return 16; +} + static struct vendor_data vendor_zte __maybe_unused = { .reg_offset = pl011_zte_offsets, .uart_pops = &amba_pl011_pops, .access_32b = true, .ifls = UART011_IFLS_RX4_8|UART011_IFLS_TX4_8, - .get_fifosize = get_fifosize_arm, + .fr_busy = ZX_UART01x_FR_BUSY, + .fr_dsr = ZX_UART01x_FR_DSR, + .fr_cts = ZX_UART01x_FR_CTS, + .fr_ri = ZX_UART011_FR_RI, + .oversampling = false, + .dma_threshold = false, + .cts_event_workaround = false, + .always_enabled = false, + .fixed_options = false, + .get_fifosize = get_fifosize_zte, }; /* Deals with DMA transactions */ @@ -248,6 +278,10 @@ struct uart_amba_port { unsigned int im; /* interrupt mask */ unsigned int old_status; unsigned int fifosize; /* vendor-specific */ + unsigned int fr_busy; /* vendor-specific */ + unsigned int fr_dsr; /* vendor-specific */ + unsigned int fr_cts; /* vendor-specific */ + unsigned int fr_ri; /* vendor-specific */ unsigned int old_cr; /* state during shutdown */ bool autorts; unsigned int fixed_baud; /* vendor-set fixed baud rate */ @@ -1178,7 +1212,7 @@ static void pl011_dma_shutdown(struct uart_amba_port *uap) return; /* Disable RX and TX DMA */ - while (pl011_read(uap, REG_FR) & UART01x_FR_BUSY) + while (pl011_read(uap, REG_FR) & uap->fr_busy) cpu_relax(); spin_lock_irq(&uap->port.lock); @@ -1427,11 +1461,11 @@ static void pl011_modem_status(struct uart_amba_port *uap) if (delta & UART01x_FR_DCD) uart_handle_dcd_change(&uap->port, status & UART01x_FR_DCD); - if (delta & UART01x_FR_DSR) + if (delta & uap->fr_dsr) uap->port.icount.dsr++; - if (delta & UART01x_FR_CTS) - uart_handle_cts_change(&uap->port, status & UART01x_FR_CTS); + if (delta & uap->fr_cts) + uart_handle_cts_change(&uap->port, status & uap->fr_cts); wake_up_interruptible(&uap->port.state->port.delta_msr_wait); } @@ -1504,7 +1538,7 @@ static unsigned int pl011_tx_empty(struct uart_port *port) struct uart_amba_port *uap = container_of(port, struct uart_amba_port, port); unsigned int status = pl011_read(uap, REG_FR); - return status & (UART01x_FR_BUSY|UART01x_FR_TXFF) ? 0 : TIOCSER_TEMT; + return status & (uap->fr_busy | UART01x_FR_TXFF) ? 0 : TIOCSER_TEMT; } static unsigned int pl011_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port) @@ -1519,9 +1553,9 @@ static unsigned int pl011_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port) result |= tiocmbit TIOCMBIT(UART01x_FR_DCD, TIOCM_CAR); - TIOCMBIT(UART01x_FR_DSR, TIOCM_DSR); - TIOCMBIT(UART01x_FR_CTS, TIOCM_CTS); - TIOCMBIT(UART011_FR_RI, TIOCM_RNG); + TIOCMBIT(uap->fr_dsr, TIOCM_DSR); + TIOCMBIT(uap->fr_cts, TIOCM_CTS); + TIOCMBIT(uap->fr_ri, TIOCM_RNG); #undef TIOCMBIT return result; } @@ -2202,7 +2236,7 @@ pl011_console_write(struct console *co, const char *s, unsigned int count) * Finally, wait for transmitter to become empty * and restore the TCR */ - while (pl011_read(uap, REG_FR) & UART01x_FR_BUSY) + while (pl011_read(uap, REG_FR) & uap->fr_busy) cpu_relax(); if (!uap->vendor->always_enabled) pl011_write(old_cr, uap, REG_CR); @@ -2484,8 +2518,12 @@ static int pl011_probe(struct amba_device *dev, const struct amba_id *id) return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); uap->reg_offset = vendor->reg_offset; - uap->vendor = vendor; - uap->fifosize = vendor->get_fifosize(dev); + uap->vendor = vendor; + uap->fifosize = vendor->get_fifosize(dev); + uap->fr_busy = vendor->fr_busy; + uap->fr_dsr = vendor->fr_dsr; + uap->fr_cts = vendor->fr_cts; + uap->fr_ri = vendor->fr_ri; uap->port.iotype = vendor->access_32b ? UPIO_MEM32 : UPIO_MEM; uap->port.irq = dev->irq[0]; uap->port.ops = &amba_pl011_pops; @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) if (!uap) return -ENOMEM; + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); + uap->vendor = vendor; uap->reg_offset = vendor->reg_offset; uap->fifosize = vendor->get_fifosize(NULL); + uap->fr_busy = vendor_sbsa.fr_busy; + uap->fr_dsr = vendor_sbsa.fr_dsr; + uap->fr_cts = vendor_sbsa.fr_cts; + uap->fr_ri = vendor_sbsa.fr_ri; uap->port.iotype = vendor->access_32b ? UPIO_MEM32 : UPIO_MEM; uap->port.irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); uap->port.ops = vendor->uart_pops; diff --git a/include/linux/amba/serial.h b/include/linux/amba/serial.h index d76a19b..750f2ef 100644 --- a/include/linux/amba/serial.h +++ b/include/linux/amba/serial.h @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ #define UART01x_FR_DSR 0x002 #define UART01x_FR_CTS 0x001 #define UART01x_FR_TMSK (UART01x_FR_TXFF + UART01x_FR_BUSY) +#define ZX_UART01x_FR_BUSY 0x300 +#define ZX_UART01x_FR_DSR 0x008 +#define ZX_UART01x_FR_CTS 0x002 +#define ZX_UART011_FR_RI 0x001 #define UART011_CR_CTSEN 0x8000 /* CTS hardware flow control */ #define UART011_CR_RTSEN 0x4000 /* RTS hardware flow control */
Complete support to ZTE uart with adding specific registers mask. Signed-off-by: Jun Nie <jun.nie@linaro.org> --- drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- include/linux/amba/serial.h | 4 +++ 2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)