Hi Brian,
On 2017/7/18 2:39, Brian Norris wrote:
Hi Shawn,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 03:36:18PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
This patch reconstructs the whole driver to support per-lane
PHYs. Note that we could also support the legacy PHY if you
don't provide argument to our of_xlate.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 112 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
index 6904633..f48b188 100644
--- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
+++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
@@ -70,13 +70,46 @@ struct rockchip_pcie_data {
unsigned int pcie_laneoff;
};
+struct phy_pcie_instance;
Is this forward declaration actually needed? You have it defined just a
few lines below.
I will remove this one.
+
+/* internal lock for multiple phys */
+DEFINE_MUTEX(pcie_mutex);
Put this inside struct rockchip_pcie_phy. It shouldn't be a global lock;
it's just for coordinating the 4 lanes within a single
"rockchip_pcie_phy".
okay.
+
struct rockchip_pcie_phy {
struct rockchip_pcie_data *phy_data;
struct regmap *reg_base;
+ struct phy_pcie_instance {
+ struct phy *phy;
+ u32 index;
+ } phys[PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM];
struct reset_control *phy_rst;
struct clk *clk_pciephy_ref;
+ int pwr_cnt;
+ int init_cnt;
};
+static inline
+struct rockchip_pcie_phy *to_pcie_phy(struct phy_pcie_instance *inst)
+{
+ return container_of(inst, struct rockchip_pcie_phy,
+ phys[inst->index]);
+}
+
+static struct phy *rockchip_pcie_phy_of_xlate(struct device *dev,
+ struct of_phandle_args *args)
+{
+ struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+ if (args->args_count == 0)
+ return rk_phy->phys[0].phy;
+
+ if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] > PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM))
This should be ">=", not ">" (an index of PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM would be out
of bounds).
will fix.
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+
+ return rk_phy->phys[args->args[0]].phy;
+}
+
+
static inline void phy_wr_cfg(struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy,
u32 addr, u32 data)
[...]
}
static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
{
- struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
+ struct phy_pcie_instance *inst = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
+ struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = to_pcie_phy(inst);
int err = 0;
u32 status;
unsigned long timeout;
+ mutex_lock(&pcie_mutex);
+
+ regmap_write(rk_phy->reg_base,
+ rk_phy->phy_data->pcie_laneoff,
+ HIWORD_UPDATE(!PHY_LANE_IDLE_OFF,
+ PHY_LANE_IDLE_MASK,
+ PHY_LANE_IDLE_A_SHIFT + inst->index));
It seems a little weird to do this before deasserting the reset, but
only on the first lane to powered on. Should this actually be the last
step in this function? Or does it really not matter?
It doesn't matter that we do this before deasserting the reset. I could
move this after the deasserting. However it shouldn't be the last setp.
If you only use lane 0 for your devcice, and it will be idle when doing
unbind since we call phy_power_off. Then bind will be failed as you
leave 4 lanes inactive finally which makes the phy fail to lock the PLL
internally. In other words, we should at least keep one active lane
when re-init the phy.
Brian
--
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
