Hi Matthias, On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 10:00 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: > On 03/02/16 06:22, James Liao wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 11:44 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: > >> On 02/02/16 07:56, James Liao wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 12:51 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: > >>>>> On 20/01/16 07:08, James Liao wrote: > >>>>>>> Refine scpsys driver common code to support multiple SoC / platform. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: James Liao<jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 418 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > >>>>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.h | 55 +++++ > >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 270 insertions(+), 203 deletions(-) > >>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.h > >>>>> > >>>>> In general this approach looks fine to me, comments below. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c > >>>>>>> index 0221387..339adfc 100644 > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c > >>>>>>> @@ -11,29 +11,17 @@ > >>>>>>> * GNU General Public License for more details. > >>>>>>> */ > >>>>>>> #include <linux/clk.h> > >>>>>>> -#include <linux/delay.h> > >>>>>>> +#include <linux/init.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/io.h> > >>>>>>> -#include <linux/kernel.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h> > >>>>> > >>>>> When at it, do we need this include? > >>> syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() is declared in this head file. > >>> > >>>>>>> -#include <linux/init.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/of_device.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/platform_device.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > >>>>>>> -#include <linux/regmap.h> > >>>>>>> -#include <linux/soc/mediatek/infracfg.h> > >>>>>>> #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h> > >>>>>>> -#include <dt-bindings/power/mt8173-power.h> > >>>>>>> +#include <linux/soc/mediatek/infracfg.h> > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> +#include "mtk-scpsys.h" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_VDE_PWR_CON 0x0210 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_MFG_PWR_CON 0x0214 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_VEN_PWR_CON 0x0230 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_ISP_PWR_CON 0x0238 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_DIS_PWR_CON 0x023c > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_VEN2_PWR_CON 0x0298 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_AUDIO_PWR_CON 0x029c > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_MFG_2D_PWR_CON 0x02c0 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_MFG_ASYNC_PWR_CON 0x02c4 > >>>>>>> -#define SPM_USB_PWR_CON 0x02cc > >>>>> > >>>>> I would prefer to keep this defines and declare SoC specific ones where > >>>>> necessary. It makes the code more readable. > >>> Some register address may be reused by other modules among SoCs, so it's > >>> not easy to maintain the defines when we implement multiple SoC drivers > >>> in the same file. For example, offset 0x0298 is VEN2_PWR_CON on MT8173, > >>> but it is MJC_PWR_CON on other chips. > >>> > >> > >> So that sounds as if 0x0298 offset is MT8173 specific. > >> I checked [VDE, MFG, VEN, IFR, ISP, DIS, DPY]_PWR_CON on mt8173, mt8135 > >> and mt6589 and they all have the same offset. So it doesn't seem as if > >> the offset randomly changes for every SoC. > >> > >>> Furthermore, these register offsets are only used in scp_domain_data[], > >>> and each element has its own power domain name. So I think it's enough > >>> to know which power domain are using these registers and status bits. > >>> > >> > >> Yes that's true, but it will make it easier for another person to > >> understand the driver, especially if he want's to implement the driver > >> for a new SoC. > > > > There are two kinds of conflicts may happen: > > > > 1. Different modules use the same register address. > > 2. Different register addresses are used by the same module (on > > different IC). > > > > Type 1. for example: > > > > #define SPM_BDP_PWR_CON 0x029c /* 2701 */ > > #define SPM_AUDIO_PWR_CON 0x029c /* 8173 */ > > > > We can resolve this conflict easily, such as define these two register > > name to the same register address. > > > > Type 2. for example: > > > > #define SPM_VDE_PWR_CON 0x0300 /* 6755 */ > > #define SPM_VDE_PWR_CON 0x0210 /* 8173 */ > > > > We can not reuse the register defines in this case. We may need to name > > the registers with its IC name, such as MT8173_SPM_VDE_PWR_CON and > > MT6755_VDE_PWR_CON. But it will increase the maintain effort. That's why > > I prefer to remove register defines if we implement multiple SoC's > > scpsys in a single file. > > > > > > Well type 2 for me is no problem at all. As stated in my last mail, > mt6755 would get the SoC name in the define (as a postfix preferably). > I don't think that this will make a lot of pain regarding maintaining > it. Even less if we have the defines in alphabetic order. > > I we see in the future that this converts to a mess, we always can get > rid of the defines quite easily. OK, I'll add register names back in next patch. Best regards, James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
