On 05/04/2018 05:04 AM, Sean Wang wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 14:20 +0800, Argus Lin wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 12:01 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:
>>> };
>
> [...]
>
>>>> @@ -1503,11 +1581,13 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> if (IS_ERR(wrp->base))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(wrp->base);
>>>>
>>>> - wrp->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(wrp->dev, "pwrap");
>>>> - if (IS_ERR(wrp->rstc)) {
>>>> - ret = PTR_ERR(wrp->rstc);
>>>> - dev_dbg(wrp->dev, "cannot get pwrap reset: %d\n", ret);
>>>> - return ret;
>>>> + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_RESET)) {
>>>> + wrp->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(wrp->dev, "pwrap");
>>>
>>> there should be a reset bit present for pwrap on infrasys.
>>>
>>> the specific condition can be dropped when the reset cell is exported from infrasys and then the device has a reference to it.
>> hmm, I think it need to keep here.
>> because after pwrap initialized, it can't be reset alone.
>> It needs to reset PMIC simultaneously, too.
>
> Reset a pair, either a master or its slave, all had been a part of
> pwrap_init.
>
> The reset controller provided here is just to reset pwrap device.
> And for its slave reset, it should be done by pwrap_reset_spislave.
>
> So for MT6397, it should be able to fall into the same procedure.
>
>>>
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(wrp->rstc)) {
>>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(wrp->rstc);
>>>> + dev_dbg(wrp->dev, "cannot get pwrap reset: %d\n", ret);
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_BRIDGE)) {
>>>> @@ -1549,9 +1629,17 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> goto err_out1;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Enable internal dynamic clock */
>>>> - pwrap_writel(wrp, 1, PWRAP_DCM_EN);
>>>> - pwrap_writel(wrp, 0, PWRAP_DCM_DBC_PRD);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * add dcm capability check
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_DCM)) {
>>>
>>> the specific condition can be dropped since so far all devices the driver can support are owning PWRAP_CAP_DCM
>> We did not support DCM for future chips.
>> MT6797 is the last one.
>> This why I want to add judgement here.
>
> The series is only for MT6797 pwrap, so it's fine with only adding these
> things the SoC actually relies on.
>
> PWRAP_CAP_DCM should not be added until a new SoC without dcm is really
> introduced.
>
I agree (and I think I said this already in a previous review).
Regards,
Matthias
>>>
>>>> + if (wrp->master->type == PWRAP_MT6797)
>>>> + pwrap_writel(wrp, 3, PWRAP_DCM_EN);
>>>
>>> the setup for MT6797 can be moved into .init_soc_specific callback ?
>>
>> I think put it here is more generally.
>>>
>>>> + else
>>>> + pwrap_writel(wrp, 1, PWRAP_DCM_EN);
>>>> +
>>>> + pwrap_writel(wrp, 0, PWRAP_DCM_DBC_PRD);
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * The PMIC could already be initialized by the bootloader.
>>>> @@ -1580,6 +1668,12 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->wdt_src, PWRAP_WDT_SRC_EN);
>>>> pwrap_writel(wrp, 0x1, PWRAP_TIMER_EN);
>>>> pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int_en_all, PWRAP_INT_EN);
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * We add INT1 interrupt to handle starvation and request exception
>>>> + * If we support it, we should enable them here.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
>>>> + pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
>>>>
>>>
>>> if there is no explicitly enabling on INT1, then ISR handling for INT1 is also unnecessary
>>
>> It's ok for me.
>>>
>>>> irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>>> ret = devm_request_irq(wrp->dev, irq, pwrap_interrupt,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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
