Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mmc: sdhci-msm: Initial support for MSM chipsets

[Georgi Djakov]

On 12/05/2013 12:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:56:45PM +0000, Georgi Djakov wrote:
> > This platform driver adds the initial support of Secure
> > Digital Host Controller Interface compliant controller
> > found in Qualcomm MSM chipsets.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Georgi Djakov <gdjakov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig     |   13 +
> >   drivers/mmc/host/Makefile    |    1 +
> >   drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c |  651 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   3 files changed, 665 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c
>
> [...]
>
> > +static int sdhci_msm_dt_parse_vreg_info(struct device *dev,
> > +                                       struct sdhci_msm_reg_data *vreg,
> > +                                       const char *vreg_name)
> > +{
> > +       int len;
> > +       const __be32 *prop;
>
> Seeing raw property handling in drivers worries me. If there's a reason
> to touch the raw DTB we should add helpers to do it rather than leaking
> binary format issues into drivers.
>
> > +       char prop_name[MAX_PROP_SIZE];
> > +       struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > +
> > +       snprintf(prop_name, MAX_PROP_SIZE, "%s-supply", vreg_name);
> > +       if (!of_parse_phandle(np, prop_name, 0)) {
> > +               dev_info(dev, "No vreg data found for %s\n", vreg_name);
> > +               return -EINVAL;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       vreg->name = vreg_name;
> > +
> > +       snprintf(prop_name, MAX_PROP_SIZE, "qcom,%s-lpm-sup", vreg_name);
> > +       if (of_get_property(np, prop_name, NULL))
> > +               vreg->lpm_sup = true;
> > +
> > +       snprintf(prop_name, MAX_PROP_SIZE, "qcom,%s-voltage-level", vreg_name);
> > +       prop = of_get_property(np, prop_name, &len);
> > +       if (!prop || (len != (2 * sizeof(__be32)))) {
> > +               dev_warn(dev, "%s %s property\n",
> > +               prop ? "invalid format" : "no", prop_name);
> > +       } else {
> > +               vreg->low_vol_level = be32_to_cpup(&prop[0]);
> > +               vreg->high_vol_level = be32_to_cpup(&prop[1]);
> > +       }
>
> You can use of_property_read_u32_array here.
>
> > +
> > +       snprintf(prop_name, MAX_PROP_SIZE, "qcom,%s-current-level", vreg_name);
> > +       prop = of_get_property(np, prop_name, &len);
> > +       if (!prop || (len != (2 * sizeof(__be32)))) {
> > +               dev_warn(dev, "%s %s property\n",
> > +                        prop ? "invalid format" : "no", prop_name);
> > +       } else {
> > +               vreg->lpm_uA = be32_to_cpup(&prop[0]);
> > +               vreg->hpm_uA = be32_to_cpup(&prop[1]);
> > +       }
>
> Likewise.

I will clean this up use only of_property_read_u32_array() and 
of_property_read_bool() for DT parsing. Thanks!


> [...]
>
> > +       /*
> > +        * CORE_SW_RST above may trigger power irq if previous status of PWRCTL
> > +        * was either BUS_ON or IO_HIGH_V. So before we enable the power irq
> > +        * interrupt in GIC (by registering the interrupt handler), we need to
> > +        * ensure that any pending power irq interrupt status is acknowledged
> > +        * otherwise power irq interrupt handler would be fired prematurely.
> > +        */
> > +       irq_status = readl_relaxed(msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_STATUS);
> > +       writel_relaxed(irq_status, (msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CLEAR));
> > +       irq_ctl = readl_relaxed(msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CTL);
> > +       if (irq_status & (CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_ON | CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_OFF))
> > +               irq_ctl |= CORE_PWRCTL_BUS_SUCCESS;
> > +       if (irq_status & (CORE_PWRCTL_IO_HIGH | CORE_PWRCTL_IO_LOW))
> > +               irq_ctl |= CORE_PWRCTL_IO_SUCCESS;
> > +       writel_relaxed(irq_ctl, (msm_host->core_mem + CORE_PWRCTL_CTL));
> > +       /*
> > +        * Ensure that above writes are propogated before interrupt enablement
> > +        * in GIC.
> > +        */
> > +       mb();
>
> Does this guarantee that the device has finished responding to the write
> and deasserted the interrupt line (i.e. does the device only acknowledge
> the write once that is true)?

I am not sure that i understand your concern. The write to 
CORE_PWRCTL_CTL should acknowledge and deassert the interrupt.

Thanks,
Georgi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/