On 09/03/2021 16:10, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &bus->m_rt_list, bus_node) {
@@ -473,8 +475,13 @@ static int qcom_swrm_compute_params(struct
sdw_bus *bus)
}
list_for_each_entry(s_rt, &m_rt->slave_rt_list, m_rt_node) {
+ slave = s_rt->slave;
list_for_each_entry(p_rt, &s_rt->port_list, port_node) {
- pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[i];
+ m_port = slave->m_port_map[_rtp->num - 1];
+ if (m_port)
+ pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[m_port - 1];
+ else
+ pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[i];
Maybe add a short comment on port allocation, I had to think a bit to
figure out why the -1 was required on both peripheral and manager but it
is not below [1]
I agree, will add some comment here to explain the offsets correctly!
--srini
p_rt->transport_params.port_num = p_rt->num;
p_rt->transport_params.sample_interval =
pcfg->si + 1;
@@ -535,8 +542,10 @@ static int qcom_swrm_stream_alloc_ports(struct
qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl,
struct sdw_master_runtime *m_rt;
struct sdw_slave_runtime *s_rt;
struct sdw_port_runtime *p_rt;
+ struct sdw_slave *slave;
unsigned long *port_mask;
int i, maxport, pn, nports = 0, ret = 0;
+ unsigned int m_port;
mutex_lock(&ctrl->port_lock);
list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &stream->master_list, stream_node) {
@@ -549,9 +558,15 @@ static int qcom_swrm_stream_alloc_ports(struct
qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl,
}
list_for_each_entry(s_rt, &m_rt->slave_rt_list, m_rt_node) {
+ slave = s_rt->slave;
list_for_each_entry(p_rt, &s_rt->port_list, port_node) {
+ m_port = slave->m_port_map[p_rt->num - 1];
/* Port numbers start from 1 - 14*/
- pn = find_first_zero_bit(port_mask, maxport);
+ if (m_port)
+ pn = m_port;
+ else
+ pn = find_first_zero_bit(port_mask, maxport);
[1]
+
if (pn > (maxport)) {
dev_err(ctrl->dev, "All ports busy\n");
ret = -EBUSY;
