Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] mmc: sdhci-msm: Define new Register address map

From: Vijay Viswanath
Date: Thu May 24 2018 - 07:34:57 EST




On 5/22/2018 11:39 PM, Evan Green wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:30 AM Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

From: Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

For SDCC version 5.0.0, MCI registers are removed from SDCC
interface and some registers are moved to HC.
Define a new data structure where we can statically define
the address offsets for the registers in different SDCC versions.

Signed-off-by: Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <vviswana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 89
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
index bb11916..2524455 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
@@ -137,6 +137,95 @@
/* Timeout value to avoid infinite waiting for pwr_irq */
#define MSM_PWR_IRQ_TIMEOUT_MS 5000

+struct sdhci_msm_offset {
+ u32 core_hc_mode;
+ u32 core_mci_data_cnt;
+ u32 core_mci_status;
+ u32 core_mci_fifo_cnt;
+ u32 core_mci_version;
+ u32 core_generics;
+ u32 core_testbus_config;
+ u32 core_testbus_sel2_bit;
+ u32 core_testbus_ena;
+ u32 core_testbus_sel2;
+ u32 core_pwrctl_status;
+ u32 core_pwrctl_mask;
+ u32 core_pwrctl_clear;
+ u32 core_pwrctl_ctl;
+ u32 core_sdcc_debug_reg;
+ u32 core_dll_config;
+ u32 core_dll_status;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec_func2;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec_capabilities0;
+ u32 core_ddr_200_cfg;
+ u32 core_vendor_spec3;
+ u32 core_dll_config_2;
+ u32 core_ddr_config;
+ u32 core_ddr_config_2;
+};
+
+static const struct sdhci_msm_offset sdhci_msm_v5_offset = {
+ .core_mci_data_cnt = 0x35c,
+ .core_mci_status = 0x324,
+ .core_mci_fifo_cnt = 0x308,
+ .core_mci_version = 0x318,
+ .core_generics = 0x320,
+ .core_testbus_config = 0x32c,
+ .core_testbus_sel2_bit = 3,
+ .core_testbus_ena = (1 << 31),
+ .core_testbus_sel2 = (1 << 3),
+ .core_pwrctl_status = 0x240,
+ .core_pwrctl_mask = 0x244,
+ .core_pwrctl_clear = 0x248,
+ .core_pwrctl_ctl = 0x24c,
+ .core_sdcc_debug_reg = 0x358,
+ .core_dll_config = 0x200,
+ .core_dll_status = 0x208,
+ .core_vendor_spec = 0x20c,
+ .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0 = 0x214,
+ .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1 = 0x218,
+ .core_vendor_spec_func2 = 0x210,
+ .core_vendor_spec_capabilities0 = 0x21c,
+ .core_ddr_200_cfg = 0x224,
+ .core_vendor_spec3 = 0x250,
+ .core_dll_config_2 = 0x254,
+ .core_ddr_config = 0x258,
+ .core_ddr_config_2 = 0x25c,
+};
+
+static const struct sdhci_msm_offset sdhci_msm_mci_offset = {
+ .core_hc_mode = 0x78,
+ .core_mci_data_cnt = 0x30,
+ .core_mci_status = 0x34,
+ .core_mci_fifo_cnt = 0x44,
+ .core_mci_version = 0x050,
+ .core_generics = 0x70,
+ .core_testbus_config = 0x0CC,
+ .core_testbus_sel2_bit = 4,
+ .core_testbus_ena = (1 << 3),
+ .core_testbus_sel2 = (1 << 4),
+ .core_pwrctl_status = 0xDC,
+ .core_pwrctl_mask = 0xE0,
+ .core_pwrctl_clear = 0xE4,
+ .core_pwrctl_ctl = 0xE8,
+ .core_sdcc_debug_reg = 0x124,
+ .core_dll_config = 0x100,
+ .core_dll_status = 0x108,
+ .core_vendor_spec = 0x10C,
+ .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0 = 0x114,
+ .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1 = 0x118,
+ .core_vendor_spec_func2 = 0x110,
+ .core_vendor_spec_capabilities0 = 0x11C,
+ .core_ddr_200_cfg = 0x184,
+ .core_vendor_spec3 = 0x1B0,
+ .core_dll_config_2 = 0x1B4,
+ .core_ddr_config = 0x1B8,
+ .core_ddr_config_2 = 0x1BC,
+};
+

I notice a lot of these are never used in the subsequent patches of this
series. I guess more register definitions are always better than fewer,
it's just a shame that they take up space now. Did you just add everything
that was different between v4 and v5, or how did you come up with this set?

Also, I think lowercase hex letters are preferred.

I verified that the v5 register offsets look good, at least for the
registers I have documentation for.

Yeah, felt it better to include all registers even they are not used currently.

Will change to use lowercase hex letters

-Evan