On 20/02/2018 14:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:48 PM, John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Zhichang Yuan <yuanzhichang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The low-pin-count(LPC) interface of Hip06/Hip07 accesses the peripherals in
I/O port addresses. This patch implements the LPC host controller driver
which perform the I/O operations on the underlying hardware.
We don't want to touch those existing peripherals' driver, such as ipmi-bt.
So this driver applies the indirect-IO introduced in the previous patch
after registering an indirect-IO node to the indirect-IO devices list which
will be searched in the I/O accessors to retrieve the host-local I/O port.
The driver config is set as a bool instead of a trisate. The reason
here is that, by the very nature of the driver providing a logical
PIO range, it does not make sense to have this driver as a loadable
module. Another more specific reason is that the Huawei D03 board
which includes hip06 SoC requires the LPC bus for UART console, so
should be built in.
Hi Andy,
+config HISILICON_LPC
+ bool "Support for ISA I/O space on Hisilicon hip06/7"
+ depends on (ARM64 && (ARCH_HISI || COMPILE_TEST))
Redundant parens.
OK, these can be removed
+ select INDIRECT_PIO
+ help
+ Driver needed for some legacy ISA devices attached to Low-Pin-Count
+ on Hisilicon hip06/7 SoC.
+#if LPC_MAX_DULEN > LPC_MAX_BURST
+#error "LPC.. MAX_DULEN must be not bigger than MAX_OPCNT!"
+#endif
But here you can easily avoid an #error, by making them equal, just
issue a warning instead.
These values are dictated by the HW. Well the burst length is.
Regardless I have simplified the driver not to use the burst mode so I
can remove.
+#if LPC_MAX_BURST % LPC_MAX_DULEN
+#error "LPC.. LPC_MAX_BURST must be multiple of LPC_MAX_DULEN!"
+#endif
Is it like this, or also should be power of two?
As above
+/* The command register fields */
+#define LPC_CMD_SAMEADDR 0x08
+#define LPC_CMD_TYPE_IO 0x00
+#define LPC_CMD_WRITE 0x01
+#define LPC_CMD_READ 0x00
+/* the bit attribute is W1C. 1 represents OK. */
+#define LPC_STAT_BYIRQ 0x02
BIT() ?
Not all, but I'll fix them up to be clearer
+#define LPC_STATUS_IDLE 0x01
+#define LPC_OP_FINISHED 0x02
+
+#define LPC_START_WORK 0x01
Ditto?
+static inline int wait_lpc_idle(unsigned char *mbase,
+ unsigned int waitcnt) {
+ u32 opstatus;
+
+ while (waitcnt--) {
+ ndelay(LPC_NSEC_PERWAIT);
+ opstatus = readl(mbase + LPC_REG_OP_STATUS);
+ if (opstatus & LPC_STATUS_IDLE)
+ return (opstatus & LPC_OP_FINISHED) ? 0 : (-EIO);
+ }
+ return -ETIME;
Personally I prefer timeout loops in a do {} while (--count) style.
OK, I think it's fine to change as mentioned
+}
+static int
+hisi_lpc_target_in(struct hisi_lpc_dev *lpcdev, struct lpc_cycle_para *para,
+ unsigned long addr, unsigned char *buf,
+ unsigned long opcnt)
+{
+ unsigned int cmd_word;
+ unsigned int waitcnt;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!buf || !opcnt || !para || !para->csize || !lpcdev)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ cmd_word = LPC_CMD_TYPE_IO | LPC_CMD_READ;
+ waitcnt = LPC_PEROP_WAITCNT;
+ if (!(para->opflags & FG_INCRADDR_LPC)) {
+ cmd_word |= LPC_CMD_SAMEADDR;
+ waitcnt = LPC_MAX_WAITCNT;
+ }
+
+ ret = 0;
+
Sounds redundant.
it is, so I'll fix
+ /* whole operation must be atomic */
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&lpcdev->cycle_lock, flags);
+
+ writel_relaxed(opcnt, lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_OP_LEN);
+
+ writel_relaxed(cmd_word, lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_CMD);
+
+ writel_relaxed(addr, lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_ADDR);
+
+ writel(LPC_START_WORK, lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_START);
+
+ /* whether the operation is finished */
+ ret = wait_lpc_idle(lpcdev->membase, waitcnt);
+ if (!ret) {
I would rather go with usual pattern
if (ret) {
...
return ret;
}
The intention was to not have 2 calls to free the spinlock. But we can
go with the usual pattern.
+ for (; opcnt; opcnt--, buf++)
+ *buf = readb(lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_RDATA);
Looks like a do {} while (slightly better for my opinion).
do {
*buf++ = readb(lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_RDATA);
} while (--opcnt);
ok
+ }
+
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lpcdev->cycle_lock, flags);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+ for (; opcnt; buf++, opcnt--)
+ writeb(*buf, lpcdev->membase + LPC_REG_WDATA);
Ditto.
Ditto
+static u32 hisi_lpc_comm_in(void *hostdata, unsigned long pio, size_t dwidth)
+ if (!lpcdev || !dwidth || dwidth > LPC_MAX_DULEN)
+ return -1;
~0 ?
I need to check the patchset for all of these :)
+ if (ret)
+ return -1;
Ditto.
+ do {
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = hisi_lpc_target_in(lpcdev, &iopara, addr,
+ buf, dwidth);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+ buf += dwidth;
+ count--;
+ } while (count);
} while (--count);
+ do {
+ if (hisi_lpc_target_out(lpcdev, &iopara, addr, buf,
+ dwidth))
+ break;
+ buf += dwidth;
+ count--;
+ } while (count);
Ditto.
ok, we can use the do-while loop
+static int hisi_lpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+ struct acpi_device *acpi_device = ACPI_COMPANION(dev);
+ struct logic_pio_hwaddr *range;
+ struct hisi_lpc_dev *lpcdev;
+ struct resource *res;
+ int ret = 0;
Redundant assignment.
Right
+ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
+ if (!res)
+ return -ENODEV;
Redundant.
Right, devm_ioremap_resource() can deal with res = NULL.
+
+ lpcdev->membase = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, res);
+ if (IS_ERR(lpcdev->membase)) {
+ dev_err(dev, "remap failed\n");
Redundant.
right, an error is printed in devm_ioremap_resource()
+ return PTR_ERR(lpcdev->membase);
+ }
+ /* register the LPC host PIO resources */
+ if (!acpi_device)
+ ret = of_platform_populate(dev->of_node, NULL, NULL, dev);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(dev, "populate children failed (%d)\n", ret);
JFYI: ret is printed by device core if ->probe() fails.
OK, so then this is superfluous
+ return ret;
+ }
This condition should go under if (!acpi_device) case.
Thanks,
John
--
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
