diff mbox series

[v2,2/6] soc: mediatek: devapc: move 'vio_idx_num' info to DT

Message ID 1617259087-5502-2-git-send-email-nina-cm.wu@mediatek.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series [v2,1/6] dt-bindings: devapc: Update bindings | expand

Commit Message

Nina Wu April 1, 2021, 6:38 a.m. UTC 
From: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>

For new ICs, there are multiple devapc HWs for different subsys.
The number of devices controlled by each devapc (i.e. 'vio_idx_num'
in the code) varies.
We move this info from compatible data to DT so that we do not need
to add n compatible for a certain IC which has n devapc HWs with
different 'vio_idx_num', respectively.

Signed-off-by: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Comments

Matthias Brugger April 6, 2021, 1:41 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 01/04/2021 08:38, Nina Wu wrote:
> From: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>
> 
> For new ICs, there are multiple devapc HWs for different subsys.
> The number of devices controlled by each devapc (i.e. 'vio_idx_num'
> in the code) varies.
> We move this info from compatible data to DT so that we do not need
> to add n compatible for a certain IC which has n devapc HWs with
> different 'vio_idx_num', respectively.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> index f1cea04..a0f6fbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> @@ -32,9 +32,6 @@ struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
>  };
>  
>  struct mtk_devapc_data {
> -	/* numbers of violation index */
> -	u32 vio_idx_num;
> -
>  	/* reg offset */
>  	u32 vio_mask_offset;
>  	u32 vio_sta_offset;
> @@ -49,6 +46,7 @@ struct mtk_devapc_data {
>  struct mtk_devapc_context {
>  	struct device *dev;
>  	void __iomem *infra_base;
> +	u32 vio_idx_num;

We should try to stay backwards compatible (newer kernel with older DTS). I
think we don't need to move vio_idx_num to mtk_devapc_context. Just don't
declare it in the per SoC match data. More details see below...

>  	struct clk *infra_clk;
>  	const struct mtk_devapc_data *data;
>  };
> @@ -60,10 +58,10 @@ static void clear_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
>  
>  	reg = ctx->infra_base + ctx->data->vio_sta_offset;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> +	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
>  		writel(GENMASK(31, 0), reg + 4 * i);
>  
> -	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1, 0),
> +	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1), 0),
>  	       reg + 4 * i);
>  }
>  
> @@ -80,15 +78,15 @@ static void mask_module_irq(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, bool mask)
>  	else
>  		val = 0;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> +	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
>  		writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
>  
>  	val = readl(reg + 4 * i);
>  	if (mask)
> -		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> +		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
>  			       0);
>  	else
> -		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> +		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
>  				0);
>  
>  	writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
> @@ -216,7 +214,6 @@ static void stop_devapc(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
>  }
>  
>  static const struct mtk_devapc_data devapc_mt6779 = {
> -	.vio_idx_num = 511,
>  	.vio_mask_offset = 0x0,
>  	.vio_sta_offset = 0x400,
>  	.vio_dbg0_offset = 0x900,
> @@ -256,6 +253,9 @@ static int mtk_devapc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	if (!ctx->infra_base)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> +	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "vio_idx_num", &ctx->vio_idx_num))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +

...only read the property if  vio_idx_num == 0.
What do you think?

Regards,
Matthias

>  	devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
>  	if (!devapc_irq)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>
Nina Wu April 8, 2021, 5:57 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi, Matthias


On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 15:41 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> 
> On 01/04/2021 08:38, Nina Wu wrote:
> > From: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>
> > 
> > For new ICs, there are multiple devapc HWs for different subsys.
> > The number of devices controlled by each devapc (i.e. 'vio_idx_num'
> > in the code) varies.
> > We move this info from compatible data to DT so that we do not need
> > to add n compatible for a certain IC which has n devapc HWs with
> > different 'vio_idx_num', respectively.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nina Wu <Nina-CM.Wu@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > index f1cea04..a0f6fbd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> > @@ -32,9 +32,6 @@ struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
> >  };
> >  
> >  struct mtk_devapc_data {
> > -	/* numbers of violation index */
> > -	u32 vio_idx_num;
> > -
> >  	/* reg offset */
> >  	u32 vio_mask_offset;
> >  	u32 vio_sta_offset;
> > @@ -49,6 +46,7 @@ struct mtk_devapc_data {
> >  struct mtk_devapc_context {
> >  	struct device *dev;
> >  	void __iomem *infra_base;
> > +	u32 vio_idx_num;
> 
> We should try to stay backwards compatible (newer kernel with older DTS). I
> think we don't need to move vio_idx_num to mtk_devapc_context. Just don't
> declare it in the per SoC match data. More details see below...
> 
> >  	struct clk *infra_clk;
> >  	const struct mtk_devapc_data *data;
> >  };
> > @@ -60,10 +58,10 @@ static void clear_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> >  
> >  	reg = ctx->infra_base + ctx->data->vio_sta_offset;
> >  
> > -	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> > +	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
> >  		writel(GENMASK(31, 0), reg + 4 * i);
> >  
> > -	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1, 0),
> > +	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1), 0),
> >  	       reg + 4 * i);
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -80,15 +78,15 @@ static void mask_module_irq(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, bool mask)
> >  	else
> >  		val = 0;
> >  
> > -	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> > +	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
> >  		writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
> >  
> >  	val = readl(reg + 4 * i);
> >  	if (mask)
> > -		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> > +		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
> >  			       0);
> >  	else
> > -		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> > +		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
> >  				0);
> >  
> >  	writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
> > @@ -216,7 +214,6 @@ static void stop_devapc(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static const struct mtk_devapc_data devapc_mt6779 = {
> > -	.vio_idx_num = 511,
> >  	.vio_mask_offset = 0x0,
> >  	.vio_sta_offset = 0x400,
> >  	.vio_dbg0_offset = 0x900,
> > @@ -256,6 +253,9 @@ static int mtk_devapc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	if (!ctx->infra_base)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> > +	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "vio_idx_num", &ctx->vio_idx_num))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> 
> ...only read the property if  vio_idx_num == 0.
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards,
> Matthias
> 

Good idea. I will fix it in the next version.

Thanks


> >  	devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> >  	if (!devapc_irq)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
index f1cea04..a0f6fbd 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
@@ -32,9 +32,6 @@  struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
 };
 
 struct mtk_devapc_data {
-	/* numbers of violation index */
-	u32 vio_idx_num;
-
 	/* reg offset */
 	u32 vio_mask_offset;
 	u32 vio_sta_offset;
@@ -49,6 +46,7 @@  struct mtk_devapc_data {
 struct mtk_devapc_context {
 	struct device *dev;
 	void __iomem *infra_base;
+	u32 vio_idx_num;
 	struct clk *infra_clk;
 	const struct mtk_devapc_data *data;
 };
@@ -60,10 +58,10 @@  static void clear_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
 
 	reg = ctx->infra_base + ctx->data->vio_sta_offset;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
 		writel(GENMASK(31, 0), reg + 4 * i);
 
-	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1, 0),
+	writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1), 0),
 	       reg + 4 * i);
 }
 
@@ -80,15 +78,15 @@  static void mask_module_irq(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, bool mask)
 	else
 		val = 0;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
+	for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
 		writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
 
 	val = readl(reg + 4 * i);
 	if (mask)
-		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
+		val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
 			       0);
 	else
-		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
+		val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
 				0);
 
 	writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
@@ -216,7 +214,6 @@  static void stop_devapc(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
 }
 
 static const struct mtk_devapc_data devapc_mt6779 = {
-	.vio_idx_num = 511,
 	.vio_mask_offset = 0x0,
 	.vio_sta_offset = 0x400,
 	.vio_dbg0_offset = 0x900,
@@ -256,6 +253,9 @@  static int mtk_devapc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!ctx->infra_base)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
+	if (of_property_read_u32(node, "vio_idx_num", &ctx->vio_idx_num))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
 	if (!devapc_irq)
 		return -EINVAL;