Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] spmi: mediatek: Add support for MT6873/8192

From: Stephen Boyd
Date: Mon Feb 08 2021 - 17:22:16 EST

Next message: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult: "[RFC PATCH 02/12] of: base: introduce of_find_node_by_phandle_from()"
Previous message: Alexandre Belloni: "Re: WARNING in mc1NUM_get_time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Quoting Hsin-Hsiung Wang (2021-02-06 21:19:13)
> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/Kconfig b/drivers/spmi/Kconfig
> index a53bad541f1a..418848840999 100644
> --- a/drivers/spmi/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/spmi/Kconfig
> @@ -25,4 +25,13 @@ config SPMI_MSM_PMIC_ARB
> This is required for communicating with Qualcomm PMICs and
> other devices that have the SPMI interface.
>
> +config SPMI_MTK_PMIF
> + tristate "Mediatek SPMI Controller (PMIC Arbiter)"
> + help
> + If you say yes to this option, support will be included for the
> + built-in SPMI PMIC Arbiter interface on Mediatek family
> + processors.
> +
> + This is required for communicating with Mediatek PMICs and
> + other devices that have the SPMI interface.

Preferably add another newline here to unstick the 'endif'

> endif
> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-mtk-pmif.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-mtk-pmif.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..4ac4643f89f3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-mtk-pmif.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +//
> +// Copyright (c) 2021 MediaTek Inc.
> +
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/spmi.h>
> +
> +#define SWINF_IDLE 0x00
> +#define SWINF_WFVLDCLR 0x06
> +
> +#define GET_SWINF(x) (((x) >> 1) & 0x7)
> +
> +#define PMIF_CMD_REG_0 0
> +#define PMIF_CMD_REG 1
> +#define PMIF_CMD_EXT_REG 2
> +#define PMIF_CMD_EXT_REG_LONG 3
> +
> +#define PMIF_DELAY_US 10
> +#define PMIF_TIMEOUT_US (10 * 1000)
> +
> +#define PMIF_CHAN_OFFSET 0x5
> +
> +#define PMIF_MAX_CLKS 3
> +
> +#define SPMI_OP_ST_BUSY 1
> +
> +struct ch_reg {
> + u32 ch_sta;
> + u32 wdata;
> + u32 rdata;
> + u32 ch_send;
> + u32 ch_rdy;
> +};
> +
> +struct pmif_data {
> + const u32 *regs;
> + const u32 *spmimst_regs;
> + u32 soc_chan;

Is this used?

> +};
> +
> +struct pmif {
> + void __iomem *base;
> + void __iomem *spmimst_base;
> + raw_spinlock_t lock;

Why is the spinlock raw? Is it used in hard irq handling?

> + struct ch_reg chan;
> + struct clk_bulk_data clks[PMIF_MAX_CLKS];
> + u32 nclks;
> + const struct pmif_data *data;
> +};
> +
> +static const char * const pmif_clock_names[] = {
> + "pmif_sys_ck", "pmif_tmr_ck", "spmimst_clk_mux",
> +};
> +
> +enum pmif_regs {
> + PMIF_INIT_DONE,
> + PMIF_INF_EN,
> + PMIF_ARB_EN,
> + PMIF_CMDISSUE_EN,
> + PMIF_TIMER_CTRL,
> + PMIF_SPI_MODE_CTRL,
> + PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_0,
> + PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_0,
> + PMIF_IRQ_CLR_0,
> + PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_1,
> + PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_1,
> + PMIF_IRQ_CLR_1,
> + PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_2,
> + PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_2,
> + PMIF_IRQ_CLR_2,
> + PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_3,
> + PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_3,
> + PMIF_IRQ_CLR_3,
> + PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_4,
> + PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_4,
> + PMIF_IRQ_CLR_4,
> + PMIF_WDT_EVENT_EN_0,
> + PMIF_WDT_FLAG_0,
> + PMIF_WDT_EVENT_EN_1,
> + PMIF_WDT_FLAG_1,
> + PMIF_SWINF_0_STA,
> + PMIF_SWINF_0_WDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_0_RDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_0_ACC,
> + PMIF_SWINF_0_VLD_CLR,
> + PMIF_SWINF_1_STA,
> + PMIF_SWINF_1_WDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_1_RDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_1_ACC,
> + PMIF_SWINF_1_VLD_CLR,
> + PMIF_SWINF_2_STA,
> + PMIF_SWINF_2_WDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_2_RDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_2_ACC,
> + PMIF_SWINF_2_VLD_CLR,
> + PMIF_SWINF_3_STA,
> + PMIF_SWINF_3_WDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_3_RDATA_31_0,
> + PMIF_SWINF_3_ACC,
> + PMIF_SWINF_3_VLD_CLR,
> +};
> +
> +static const u32 mt6873_regs[] = {
> + [PMIF_INIT_DONE] = 0x0000,
> + [PMIF_INF_EN] = 0x0024,
> + [PMIF_ARB_EN] = 0x0150,
> + [PMIF_CMDISSUE_EN] = 0x03B4,
> + [PMIF_TIMER_CTRL] = 0x03E0,
> + [PMIF_SPI_MODE_CTRL] = 0x0400,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_0] = 0x0418,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_0] = 0x0420,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_CLR_0] = 0x0424,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_1] = 0x0428,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_1] = 0x0430,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_CLR_1] = 0x0434,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_2] = 0x0438,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_2] = 0x0440,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_CLR_2] = 0x0444,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_3] = 0x0448,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_3] = 0x0450,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_CLR_3] = 0x0454,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_EVENT_EN_4] = 0x0458,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_FLAG_4] = 0x0460,
> + [PMIF_IRQ_CLR_4] = 0x0464,
> + [PMIF_WDT_EVENT_EN_0] = 0x046C,
> + [PMIF_WDT_FLAG_0] = 0x0470,
> + [PMIF_WDT_EVENT_EN_1] = 0x0474,
> + [PMIF_WDT_FLAG_1] = 0x0478,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_0_ACC] = 0x0C00,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_0_WDATA_31_0] = 0x0C04,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_0_RDATA_31_0] = 0x0C14,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_0_VLD_CLR] = 0x0C24,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_0_STA] = 0x0C28,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_1_ACC] = 0x0C40,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_1_WDATA_31_0] = 0x0C44,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_1_RDATA_31_0] = 0x0C54,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_1_VLD_CLR] = 0x0C64,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_1_STA] = 0x0C68,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_2_ACC] = 0x0C80,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_2_WDATA_31_0] = 0x0C84,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_2_RDATA_31_0] = 0x0C94,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_2_VLD_CLR] = 0x0CA4,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_2_STA] = 0x0CA8,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_3_ACC] = 0x0CC0,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_3_WDATA_31_0] = 0x0CC4,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_3_RDATA_31_0] = 0x0CD4,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_3_VLD_CLR] = 0x0CE4,
> + [PMIF_SWINF_3_STA] = 0x0CE8,
> +};
> +
> +enum spmi_regs {
> + SPMI_OP_ST_CTRL,
> + SPMI_GRP_ID_EN,
> + SPMI_OP_ST_STA,
> + SPMI_MST_SAMPL,
> + SPMI_MST_REQ_EN,
> + SPMI_REC_CTRL,
> + SPMI_REC0,
> + SPMI_REC1,
> + SPMI_REC2,
> + SPMI_REC3,
> + SPMI_REC4,
> + SPMI_MST_DBG,
> +};
> +
> +static const u32 mt6873_spmi_regs[] = {

There's only one of these so far. Is there going to be a different
register layout in the future? If we can avoid the indirection it would
be ideal.

> + [SPMI_OP_ST_CTRL] = 0x0000,
> + [SPMI_GRP_ID_EN] = 0x0004,
> + [SPMI_OP_ST_STA] = 0x0008,
> + [SPMI_MST_SAMPL] = 0x000c,
> + [SPMI_MST_REQ_EN] = 0x0010,
> + [SPMI_REC_CTRL] = 0x0040,
> + [SPMI_REC0] = 0x0044,
> + [SPMI_REC1] = 0x0048,
> + [SPMI_REC2] = 0x004c,
> + [SPMI_REC3] = 0x0050,
> + [SPMI_REC4] = 0x0054,
> + [SPMI_MST_DBG] = 0x00fc,
> +};
> +
> +static u32 pmif_readl(struct pmif *arb, enum pmif_regs reg)
> +{
> + return readl(arb->base + arb->data->regs[reg]);
> +}
> +
> +static void pmif_writel(struct pmif *arb, u32 val, enum pmif_regs reg)
> +{
> + writel(val, arb->base + arb->data->regs[reg]);
> +}
> +
> +static void mtk_spmi_writel(struct pmif *arb, u32 val, enum spmi_regs reg)
> +{
> + writel(val, arb->spmimst_base + arb->data->spmimst_regs[reg]);
> +}
> +
> +static bool pmif_is_fsm_vldclr(struct pmif *arb)
> +{
> + u32 reg_rdata;
> +
> + reg_rdata = pmif_readl(arb, arb->chan.ch_sta);
> + return GET_SWINF(reg_rdata) == SWINF_WFVLDCLR;
> +}
> +
> +static int pmif_arb_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid)
> +{
> + struct pmif *arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
> + u32 rdata, cmd;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Check for argument validation. */
> + if (sid & ~0xf) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "exceed the max slv id\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Check the opcode */
> + if (opc < SPMI_CMD_RESET || opc > SPMI_CMD_WAKEUP)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + cmd = opc - SPMI_CMD_RESET;
> +
> + mtk_spmi_writel(arb, (cmd << 0x4) | sid, SPMI_OP_ST_CTRL);
> + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(arb->spmimst_base + arb->data->spmimst_regs[SPMI_OP_ST_STA],
> + rdata, (rdata & SPMI_OP_ST_BUSY) == SPMI_OP_ST_BUSY,
> + PMIF_DELAY_US, PMIF_TIMEOUT_US);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "timeout, err = %d\n", ret);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int pmif_spmi_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
> + u16 addr, u8 *buf, size_t len)
> +{
> + struct pmif *arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
> + struct ch_reg *inf_reg;
> + int ret;
> + u32 data, cmd;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /* Check for argument validation. */
> + if (sid & ~0xf) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "exceed the max slv id\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (len > 4) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "pmif supports 1..4 bytes per trans, but:%zu requested", len);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (opc >= 0x60 && opc <= 0x7f)
> + opc = PMIF_CMD_REG;
> + else if ((opc >= 0x20 && opc <= 0x2f) || (opc >= 0x38 && opc <= 0x3f))
> + opc = PMIF_CMD_EXT_REG_LONG;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&arb->lock, flags);
> +
> + /* Wait for Software Interface FSM state to be IDLE. */
> + inf_reg = &arb->chan;
> + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(arb->base + arb->data->regs[inf_reg->ch_sta],
> + data, GET_SWINF(data) == SWINF_IDLE,
> + PMIF_DELAY_US, PMIF_TIMEOUT_US);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + /* set channel ready if the data has transferred */
> + if (pmif_is_fsm_vldclr(arb))
> + pmif_writel(arb, 1, inf_reg->ch_rdy);
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "failed to wait for SWINF_IDLE\n");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Send the command. */
> + cmd = (opc << 30) | (sid << 24) | ((len - 1) << 16) | addr;
> + pmif_writel(arb, cmd, inf_reg->ch_send);
> +
> + /*
> + * Wait for Software Interface FSM state to be WFVLDCLR,
> + * read the data and clear the valid flag.
> + */
> + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(arb->base + arb->data->regs[inf_reg->ch_sta],
> + data, GET_SWINF(data) == SWINF_WFVLDCLR,
> + PMIF_DELAY_US, PMIF_TIMEOUT_US);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "failed to wait for SWINF_WFVLDCLR\n");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + data = pmif_readl(arb, inf_reg->rdata);
> + memcpy(buf, &data, len);
> + pmif_writel(arb, 1, inf_reg->ch_rdy);
> +
> +out:
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arb->lock, flags);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int pmif_spmi_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
> + u16 addr, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
> +{
> + struct pmif *arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
> + struct ch_reg *inf_reg;
> + int ret;
> + u32 data, cmd;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /* Check for argument validation. */
> + if (sid & ~0xf) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "exceed the max slv id\n");

Feels like something we should push up into the core framework instead
of having each driver figure out.

> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + if (len > 4) {
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "pmif supports 1..4 bytes per trans, but:%zu requested", len);

Feels like something we should push up into the core framework instead
of having each driver figure out.

> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* Check the opcode */
> + if (opc >= 0x40 && opc <= 0x5F)
> + opc = PMIF_CMD_REG;
> + else if ((opc <= 0xF) || (opc >= 0x30 && opc <= 0x37))
> + opc = PMIF_CMD_EXT_REG_LONG;
> + else if (opc >= 0x80)
> + opc = PMIF_CMD_REG_0;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&arb->lock, flags);
> +
> + /* Wait for Software Interface FSM state to be IDLE. */
> + inf_reg = &arb->chan;
> + ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(arb->base + arb->data->regs[inf_reg->ch_sta],
> + data, GET_SWINF(data) == SWINF_IDLE,
> + PMIF_DELAY_US, PMIF_TIMEOUT_US);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + /* set channel ready if the data has transferred */
> + if (pmif_is_fsm_vldclr(arb))
> + pmif_writel(arb, 1, inf_reg->ch_rdy);
> + dev_err(&ctrl->dev, "failed to wait for SWINF_IDLE\n");
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* Set the write data. */
> + memcpy(&data, buf, len);
> + pmif_writel(arb, data, inf_reg->wdata);
> +
> + /* Send the command. */
> + cmd = (opc << 30) | BIT(29) | (sid << 24) | ((len - 1) << 16) | addr;
> + pmif_writel(arb, cmd, inf_reg->ch_send);

What is BIT 29? Is that special somehow?

> +
> +out:
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&arb->lock, flags);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +

Next message: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult: "[RFC PATCH 02/12] of: base: introduce of_find_node_by_phandle_from()"
Previous message: Alexandre Belloni: "Re: WARNING in mc1NUM_get_time"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]