Re: [PATCH v3] hwspinlock: qcom: Add support for Qualcomm HW Mutex block

From: Kumar Gala
Date: Wed Sep 03 2014 - 11:23:10 EST

On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed 03 Sep 05:49 PDT 2014, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:04 PM, Bjorn Andersson <Bjorn.Andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Changes since v2:
>>> - Changed prefix to qcom
>>> - Cleaned up includes
>>> - Rely on reg and num-locks to figure out stride, instead of of_match data
>> I know Jeff prefers this method of computing stride, but I’m not a fan as
>> there isn’t a reason one could adjust qcom,num-locks in the dt for some
>> reason and leave regs alone.
> All the current platform it's 32 consecutive mutexes with either 4 or 128 byte
> stride, so encoding it as data either way works fine. The hardware you're
> trying to describe with your dt is the addresses that spans your mutex
> registers and how many there are. So from the HW/dts pov I don't see why you
> would like to do this.
> Then looking in the caf code, there is a limit of max 8 mutexes. So apparently
> there is some sort of usecase, I just don't know what or if it's valid from a
> dt pov.

I believe not all the mutexes are meant for the cores running linux. However, I think we just expect linux to play nice and not touch anything it isn’t using explicitly.

> Going to that future awesome SoCs where it's still called tcsr-mutex, but with
> a stride of 4096 bytes makes me wonder; is that really a consecutive 128kb with
> nothing else in-between that we can ioremap?

think 64-bit machines with more address space to burn and wanting to separate resources to use MMUs for protection.

> I.e. can we really reuse this driver straight off for that SoC?

I dont see why not.

>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/qcom-hwspinlock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/qcom-hwspinlock.txt
>>> +- compatible:
>>> + Usage: required
>>> + Value type: <string>
>>> + Definition: must be one of:
>>> + "qcom,sfpb-mutex",
>>> + "qcom,tcsr-mutex”
>> I dont get the purpose of having different compatible strings if there is no
>> difference in the code between them.
> The semantics are the same, but there are no mutex registers in the tcsr block
> in e.g 8960, so the name is just missleading. I assume that's why you didn't
> follow caf and used the compatible "sfpb" in the first place?

What do you expect the 8960 dt node to look like? I’m not 100% against ‘sfpb’

I’m feel like we we should use compat for stride, so we’d end up with something like:

qcom,sfpb-mutex: stride 4 bytes, base: 0x01200604, reset: 0x01200600
qcom,tcsr-mutex: stride 128 bytes, base: 0xFD484000, reset: 0xFD485380
qcom,tcsr-4k-mutex: stride 4k bytes, base: 0x740000, reset: 0x767000

- k

Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at