Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add arbiter capability

From: Hsin-hsiung Wang
Date: Thu Feb 04 2021 - 08:05:07 EST

Next message: Hsin-hsiung Wang: "Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add pwrap driver for MT6873/8192 SoCs"
Previous message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [PATCH v16 07/11] secretmem: use PMD-size pages to amortize direct map fragmentation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

On Mon, 2020-12-21 at 10:33 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:08 PM Hsin-Hsiung Wang
> <hsin-hsiung.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add arbiter capability for pwrap driver.
> > The arbiter capability uses new design to judge the priority and latency
> > for multi-channel.
> > This patch is preparing for adding mt6873/8192 pwrap support.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hsin-Hsiung Wang <hsin-hsiung.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > index c897205..5678f46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
> > @@ -25,10 +25,12 @@
> >
> > /* macro for wrapper status */
> > #define PWRAP_GET_WACS_RDATA(x) (((x) >> 0) & 0x0000ffff)
> > +#define PWRAP_GET_WACS_ARB_FSM(x) (((x) >> 1) & 0x00000007)
> > #define PWRAP_GET_WACS_FSM(x) (((x) >> 16) & 0x00000007)
> > #define PWRAP_GET_WACS_REQ(x) (((x) >> 19) & 0x00000001)
> > #define PWRAP_STATE_SYNC_IDLE0 BIT(20)
> > #define PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0 BIT(21)
> > +#define PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE1 BIT(15)
> >
> > /* macro for WACS FSM */
> > #define PWRAP_WACS_FSM_IDLE 0x00
> > @@ -74,6 +76,7 @@
> > #define PWRAP_CAP_DCM BIT(2)
> > #define PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN BIT(3)
> > #define PWRAP_CAP_WDT_SRC1 BIT(4)
> > +#define PWRAP_CAP_ARB BIT(5)
> >
> > /* defines for slave device wrapper registers */
> > enum dew_regs {
> > @@ -340,6 +343,8 @@ enum pwrap_regs {
> > PWRAP_DCM_DBC_PRD,
> > PWRAP_EINT_STA0_ADR,
> > PWRAP_EINT_STA1_ADR,
> > + PWRAP_SWINF_2_WDATA_31_0,
> > + PWRAP_SWINF_2_RDATA_31_0,
> >
> > /* MT2701 only regs */
> > PWRAP_ADC_CMD_ADDR,
> > @@ -1108,14 +1113,22 @@ static void pwrap_writel(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 val, enum pwrap_regs reg)
> >
> > static bool pwrap_is_fsm_idle(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp)
> > {
> > - u32 val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA);
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA);
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + return PWRAP_GET_WACS_ARB_FSM(val) == PWRAP_WACS_FSM_IDLE;
> >
> > return PWRAP_GET_WACS_FSM(val) == PWRAP_WACS_FSM_IDLE;
> > }
> >
> > static bool pwrap_is_fsm_vldclr(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp)
> > {
> > - u32 val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA);
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA);
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + return PWRAP_GET_WACS_ARB_FSM(val) == PWRAP_WACS_FSM_WFVLDCLR;
>
> This code is now copied twice. Do you think it'd be better to create a
> new function?
>
> static u32 pwrap_get_fsm_state(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp) {
> if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> return PWRAP_GET_WACS_ARB_FSM(val);
> else
> return PWRAP_GET_WACS_FSM(val);
> }
>

Thanks for the review. I will update it in the next patch.

> >
> > return PWRAP_GET_WACS_FSM(val) == PWRAP_WACS_FSM_WFVLDCLR;
> > }
> > @@ -1165,6 +1178,7 @@ static int pwrap_wait_for_state(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp,
> > static int pwrap_read16(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 adr, u32 *rdata)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > + u32 val;
> >
> > ret = pwrap_wait_for_state(wrp, pwrap_is_fsm_idle);
> > if (ret) {
> > @@ -1172,13 +1186,21 @@ static int pwrap_read16(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 adr, u32 *rdata)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - pwrap_writel(wrp, (adr >> 1) << 16, PWRAP_WACS2_CMD);
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + val = adr;
> > + else
> > + val = (adr >> 1) << 16;
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, val, PWRAP_WACS2_CMD);
> >
> > ret = pwrap_wait_for_state(wrp, pwrap_is_fsm_vldclr);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > - *rdata = PWRAP_GET_WACS_RDATA(pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA));
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_SWINF_2_RDATA_31_0);
> > + else
> > + val = pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA);
> > + *rdata = PWRAP_GET_WACS_RDATA(val);
> >
> > pwrap_writel(wrp, 1, PWRAP_WACS2_VLDCLR);
> >
> > @@ -1228,8 +1250,13 @@ static int pwrap_write16(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 adr, u32 wdata)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > - pwrap_writel(wrp, (1 << 31) | ((adr >> 1) << 16) | wdata,
> > - PWRAP_WACS2_CMD);
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB)) {
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, wdata, PWRAP_SWINF_2_WDATA_31_0);
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, BIT(29) | adr, PWRAP_WACS2_CMD);
> > + } else {
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, BIT(31) | ((adr >> 1) << 16) | wdata,
> > + PWRAP_WACS2_CMD);
> > + }
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -2022,6 +2049,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, of_pwrap_match_tbl);
> > static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > int ret, irq;
> > + u32 mask_done;
> > struct pmic_wrapper *wrp;
> > struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > const struct of_device_id *of_slave_id = NULL;
> > @@ -2116,14 +2144,21 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - if (!(pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA) & PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0)) {
> > + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + mask_done = PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE1;
> > + else
> > + mask_done = PWRAP_STATE_INIT_DONE0;
> > +
> > + if (!(pwrap_readl(wrp, PWRAP_WACS2_RDATA) & mask_done)) {
> > dev_dbg(wrp->dev, "initialization isn't finished\n");
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > goto err_out2;
> > }
> >
> > /* Initialize watchdog, may not be done by the bootloader */
> > - pwrap_writel(wrp, 0xf, PWRAP_WDT_UNIT);
> > + if (!HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, 0xf, PWRAP_WDT_UNIT);
> > +
>
> To expand on Matthias' question on v3
> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/1600686235-27979-3-git-send-email-hsin-hsiung.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/):
> is there any PWRAP implementation where a design with an arbiter is
> still able to control the watchdog?
>
> If not, at the very least, it'd be good to expand the comment above
> (e.g. "designs with arbiter support cannot change the watchdog
> timer").
>

No, there is no other wrap design with an arbiter to control the
watchdog.
Thanks for the comment, I will update the comment in next patch.

> > /*
> > * Since STAUPD was not used on mt8173 platform,
> > * so STAUPD of WDT_SRC which should be turned off
> > @@ -2132,7 +2167,11 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_WDT_SRC1))
> > pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->wdt_src, PWRAP_WDT_SRC_EN_1);
> >
> > - pwrap_writel(wrp, 0x1, PWRAP_TIMER_EN);
> > + if (!HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
>
> Please invert this if test:
>
> if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_ARB))
> ... 0x3 ...
> else
> ... 0x1 ...
>

Thanks for the review. I will update it in the next patch.

> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, 0x1, PWRAP_TIMER_EN);
> > + else
> > + pwrap_writel(wrp, 0x3, PWRAP_TIMER_EN);
> > +
> > pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int_en_all, PWRAP_INT_EN);
> > /*
> > * We add INT1 interrupt to handle starvation and request exception
> > --
> > 2.6.4
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-mediatek mailing list
> > Linux-mediatek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mediatek

Next message: Hsin-hsiung Wang: "Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add pwrap driver for MT6873/8192 SoCs"
Previous message: Michal Hocko: "Re: [PATCH v16 07/11] secretmem: use PMD-size pages to amortize direct map fragmentation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]