RE: [PATCH 2/2] soc: imx: gpcv2: make pgc driver more generic for other i.MX platforms

From: Anson Huang
Date: Mon Aug 27 2018 - 22:32:47 EST

Hi, Andrey

Anson Huang
Best Regards!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 7:04 AM
> To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer
> <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fabio
> Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxx>; linux-arm-kernel
> <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel
> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] soc: imx: gpcv2: make pgc driver more generic for
> other i.MX platforms
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:51 PM Andrey Smirnov
> <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 11:45 PM Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > i.MX8MQ and i.MX8MM share same gpc module with i.MX7D, they can
> > > reuse gpcv2 pgc driver for power domain control, this patch renames
> > > all functions and structure definitions started with "imx7" to
> > > "imx", and check machine type to pass platform specific power domain
> > > data for power domain driver, thus make
> > > gpcv2 pgc driver more generic for i.MX platforms.
> > >
> >
> > Just for the sake of
>
> Oops, forgot to type out the question I had about i.MX8MQ GPC in general. I've
> noticed that vendor tree for i.MX8MQ has a separate driver for GPC that relies
> on code in ARM Trusted Firmware binary blob to do the actual switching. Do
> you by any chances know the relation between this code and the driver I
> describe? Are they mutually exclusive or complimentary (I assume the former)?
> Will the ATF-based driver be eventually deprecated?

Yes, our internal NXP tree currently put all GPC registers operation in ARM Trusted Firmware, and
Linux kernel has a gpc-psci.c which is a virtual GPC driver to call SMC and trap into ARM Trusted Firmware
whenever it wants to read/write GPC registers. But for upstream, we plan to reuse i.MX7D's
GPC driver for power domain control, since the GPC registers for power domain control are
independent with other low power mode's control registers, it is NOT necessary to introduce
another virtual GPC driver to call ARM Trusted Firmware for power domain control.

So yes, ATF-based gpc driver for power domain control will be deprecated when we upstream the ATF for
i.MX8MQ series SoCs. We prefer to reuse the i.MX7D's GPC driver in upstream Linux kernel. If you are OK
with this, I will send out a V2 patch set to address your comments, thanks.

Anson.

>
> Thanks,
> Andrey Smirnov
>
> >
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c | 68
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c b/drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c index
> > > 0e31465..0e33cb5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/soc/imx/gpcv2.c
> > > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
> > >
> > > #define GPC_PGC_CTRL_PCR BIT(0)
> > >
> > > -struct imx7_pgc_domain {
> > > +struct imx_pgc_domain {
> > > struct generic_pm_domain genpd;
> > > struct regmap *regmap;
> > > struct regulator *regulator; @@ -69,11 +69,11 @@ struct
> > > imx7_pgc_domain {
> > > struct device *dev;
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static int imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > *genpd,
> > > +static int imx_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > +*genpd,
> > > bool on) {
> > > - struct imx7_pgc_domain *domain = container_of(genpd,
> > > - struct
> imx7_pgc_domain,
> > > + struct imx_pgc_domain *domain = container_of(genpd,
> > > + struct
> > > + imx_pgc_domain,
> > > genpd);
> > > unsigned int offset = on ?
> > > GPC_PU_PGC_SW_PUP_REQ :
> GPC_PU_PGC_SW_PDN_REQ; @@
> > > -150,17 +150,17 @@ static int imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(struct
> generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pup_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > *genpd)
> > > +static int imx_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pup_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > +*genpd)
> > > {
> > > - return imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(genpd, true);
> > > + return imx_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(genpd, true);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pdn_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > *genpd)
> > > +static int imx_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pdn_req(struct generic_pm_domain
> > > +*genpd)
> > > {
> > > - return imx7_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(genpd, false);
> > > + return imx_gpc_pu_pgc_sw_pxx_req(genpd, false);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static const struct imx7_pgc_domain imx7_pgc_domains[] = {
> > > +static const struct imx_pgc_domain imx7_pgc_domains[] = {
> > > [IMX7_POWER_DOMAIN_MIPI_PHY] = {
> > > .genpd = {
> > > .name = "mipi-phy",
> > > @@ -198,9 +198,9 @@ static const struct imx7_pgc_domain
> imx7_pgc_domains[] = {
> > > },
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static int imx7_pgc_domain_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +static int imx_pgc_domain_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > - struct imx7_pgc_domain *domain = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > > + struct imx_pgc_domain *domain = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > domain->dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > @@ -233,9 +233,9 @@ static int imx7_pgc_domain_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int imx7_pgc_domain_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > +static int imx_pgc_domain_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > - struct imx7_pgc_domain *domain = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > > + struct imx_pgc_domain *domain = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > >
> > > of_genpd_del_provider(domain->dev->of_node);
> > > pm_genpd_remove(&domain->genpd); @@ -243,23 +243,24
> @@
> > > static int imx7_pgc_domain_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static const struct platform_device_id imx7_pgc_domain_id[] = {
> > > - { "imx7-pgc-domain", },
> > > +static const struct platform_device_id imx_pgc_domain_id[] = {
> > > + { "imx-pgc-domain", },
> > > { },
> > > };
> > >
> > > -static struct platform_driver imx7_pgc_domain_driver = {
> > > +static struct platform_driver imx_pgc_domain_driver = {
> > > .driver = {
> > > - .name = "imx7-pgc",
> > > + .name = "imx-pgc",
> > > },
> > > - .probe = imx7_pgc_domain_probe,
> > > - .remove = imx7_pgc_domain_remove,
> > > - .id_table = imx7_pgc_domain_id,
> > > + .probe = imx_pgc_domain_probe,
> > > + .remove = imx_pgc_domain_remove,
> > > + .id_table = imx_pgc_domain_id,
> > > };
> > > -builtin_platform_driver(imx7_pgc_domain_driver)
> > > +builtin_platform_driver(imx_pgc_domain_driver)
> > >
> > > static int imx_gpcv2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > > + static const struct imx_pgc_domain *imx_pgc_domains;
> > > static const struct regmap_range yes_ranges[] = {
> > > regmap_reg_range(GPC_LPCR_A_CORE_BSC,
> > > GPC_M4_PU_PDN_FLG), @@
> -287,6
> > > +288,7 @@ static int imx_gpcv2_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > struct regmap *regmap;
> > > struct resource *res;
> > > void __iomem *base;
> > > + int pgc_max_index;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > pgc_np = of_get_child_by_name(dev->of_node, "pgc"); @@
> > > -307,9 +309,19 @@ static int imx_gpcv2_probe(struct platform_device
> *pdev)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("fsl,imx7d")) {
> > > + pgc_max_index = ARRAY_SIZE(imx7_pgc_domains);
> > > + imx_pgc_domains = imx7_pgc_domains;
> > > + }
> >
> > Is there any reason to do this explicit call to
> > of_machine_is_compatible() as opposed to passing necessary data via
> > .data in imx_gpcv2_dt_ids[]? The latter seems like a more
> > straightforward way of passing variant specific driver info
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!imx_pgc_domains) {
> > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no device match found\n");
> > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > + }
> >
> > And doing so would also allow you to drop the check above.
> >
> > Other that this seems like a reasonable change:
> >
> > Acked-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrey Smirnov