Re: [PATCH v9 6/9] soc: mediatek: Add extra sram control

[Nicolas Boichat]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 2:47 PM Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> For some power domains like vpu_core on MT8183 whose sram need to
> do clock and internal isolation while power on/off sram.
> We add a flag "sram_iso_ctrl" in scp_domain_data to judge if we
> need to do the extra sram isolation control or not.
>
> Signed-off-by: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> index 2bbf907..0676b46 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@
>  #define PWR_ON_BIT                     BIT(2)
>  #define PWR_ON_2ND_BIT                 BIT(3)
>  #define PWR_CLK_DIS_BIT                        BIT(4)
> +#define PWR_SRAM_CLKISO_BIT            BIT(5)
> +#define PWR_SRAM_ISOINT_B_BIT          BIT(6)
>
>  #define PWR_STATUS_CONN                        BIT(1)
>  #define PWR_STATUS_DISP                        BIT(3)
> @@ -115,6 +117,8 @@ enum clk_id {
>   * @name: The domain name.
>   * @sta_mask: The mask for power on/off status bit.
>   * @ctl_offs: The offset for main power control register.
> + * @sram_iso_ctrl: The flag to judge if the power domain need to do
> + *                 the extra sram isolation control.
>   * @sram_pdn_bits: The mask for sram power control bits.
>   * @sram_pdn_ack_bits: The mask for sram power control acked bits.
>   * @bus_prot_mask: The mask for single step bus protection.
> @@ -130,6 +134,7 @@ struct scp_domain_data {
>         const char *name;
>         u32 sta_mask;
>         int ctl_offs;
> +       bool sram_iso_ctrl;
>         u32 sram_pdn_bits;
>         u32 sram_pdn_ack_bits;
>         u32 bus_prot_mask;
> @@ -269,6 +274,14 @@ static int scpsys_sram_enable(struct scp_domain *scpd, void __iomem *ctl_addr)
>                         return ret;
>         }
>
> +       if (scpd->data->sram_iso_ctrl)  {
> +               val = readl(ctl_addr) | PWR_SRAM_ISOINT_B_BIT;
> +               writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +               udelay(1);
> +               val &= ~PWR_SRAM_CLKISO_BIT;
> +               writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +       }
> +
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> @@ -278,8 +291,16 @@ static int scpsys_sram_disable(struct scp_domain *scpd, void __iomem *ctl_addr)
>         u32 pdn_ack = scpd->data->sram_pdn_ack_bits;
>         int tmp;
>
> -       val = readl(ctl_addr);
> -       val |= scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
> +       if (scpd->data->sram_iso_ctrl)  {
> +               val = readl(ctl_addr);
> +               val |= PWR_SRAM_CLKISO_BIT;

You do this in 1 line above. I don't really care, but be consistent?
e.g. val = readl(ctl_addr) | PWR_SRAM_CLKISO_BIT;

> +               writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +               val &= ~PWR_SRAM_ISOINT_B_BIT;
> +               writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +               udelay(1);
> +       }
> +
> +       val = readl(ctl_addr) | scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
>         writel(val, ctl_addr);
>
>         /* Either wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 1 or 0 */
> --
> 1.8.1.1.dirty