On Mon, 2020-07-13 at 13:16 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2020 09:45, Neal Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 14:14 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>> +
> >>> +static int get_vio_slave_num(int slave_type)
> >>
> >> I have a hard time to understand the usefullness of this, can you please explain.
> >>
> >
> > The basic idea is to get total numbers of slaves. And we can use it to
> > scan all slaves which has been triggered violation.
> > I think I can pass it through DT data instead of using mtk_device_info
> > array. I'll send another patches to change it.
> >
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (slave_type == 0)
> >>> + return ARRAY_SIZE(mtk_devices_infra);
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static u32 get_shift_group(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, int vio_idx)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 vio_shift_sta;
> >>> + void __iomem *reg;
> >>> + int bit;
> >>> +
> >>> + reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, VIO_SHIFT_STA, 0);
> >>> + vio_shift_sta = readl(reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + for (bit = 0; bit < 32; bit++) {
> >>> + if ((vio_shift_sta >> bit) & 0x1) > + break;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + return bit;
> >>
> >> We return the first position (from the right) of the rigster with the bit set to
> >> one. Correct?
> >> Can't we use __ffs() for this?
> >
> > Yes, thanks for your reminds to use __ffs().
> > I'll revise it in next patches.
> >
> >>
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int check_vio_mask_sta(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, u32 module, int pd_reg_type)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 reg_index, reg_offset;
> >>> + void __iomem *reg;
> >>> + u32 value;
> >>> +
> >>> + VIO_MASK_STA_REG_GET(module);
> >>> +
> >>> + reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, pd_reg_type, reg_index);
> >>
> >> reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, pd_reg_type,
> >> VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(module));
> >
> > Okay, I'll revise it in next patches.
> >
> >>
> >>> + value = readl(reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + return ((value >> reg_offset) & 0x1);
> >>
> >> return ((value >> VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(module)) & 0x1);
> >
> > Okay, I'll revise it in next patches.
> >
> >>
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int check_vio_mask(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx, int slave_type,
> >>> + u32 module)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return check_vio_mask_sta(devapc_ctx, slave_type, module, VIO_MASK);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int check_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, u32 module)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return check_vio_mask_sta(devapc_ctx, slave_type, module, VIO_STA);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void clear_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, u32 module)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 reg_index, reg_offset;
> >>> + void __iomem *reg;
> >>> +
> >>> + VIO_MASK_STA_REG_GET(module);
> >>> +
> >>> + reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, VIO_STA, reg_index);
> >>> + writel(0x1 << reg_offset, reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (check_vio_status(devapc_ctx, slave_type, module))
> >>> + pr_err(PFX "%s: Clear failed, slave_type:0x%x, module_index:0x%x\n",
> >>> + __func__, slave_type, module);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void mask_module_irq(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, u32 module, bool mask)
> >>> +{
> >>> + u32 reg_index, reg_offset;
> >>> + void __iomem *reg;
> >>> + u32 value;
> >>> +
> >>> + VIO_MASK_STA_REG_GET(module);
> >>> +
> >>> + reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, VIO_MASK, reg_index);
> >>> +
> >>> + value = readl(reg);
> >>> + if (mask)
> >>> + value |= (0x1 << reg_offset);
> >>> + else
> >>> + value &= ~(0x1 << reg_offset);
> >>> +
> >>> + writel(value, reg);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +#define TIMEOUT_MS 10000
> >>> +
> >>> +static int read_poll_timeout(void __iomem *addr, u32 mask)
> >>
> >> That function is defined in include/linux/iopoll.h
> >>
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(TIMEOUT_MS);
> >>> +
> >>> + do {
> >>> + if (readl_relaxed(addr) & mask)
> >>
> >> Please use a variable where you write your value to and then check for the mask.
> >> That maks the code easier to read and I think is part of the coding style.
> >>
> >
> > Okay, I'll use the function in iopoll.h instead.
> > Thanks for your reminds.
> >
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + } while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout));
> >>> +
> >>> + return (readl_relaxed(addr) & mask) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * sync_vio_dbg - start to get violation information by selecting violation
> >>> + * group and enable violation shift.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Returns sync done or not
> >>> + */
> >>> +static u32 sync_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx, int slave_type,
> >>> + u32 shift_bit)
> >>> +{
> >>> + void __iomem *pd_vio_shift_sta_reg;
> >>> + void __iomem *pd_vio_shift_sel_reg;
> >>> + void __iomem *pd_vio_shift_con_reg;
> >>> + u32 sync_done = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + pd_vio_shift_sta_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_STA, 0);
> >>> + pd_vio_shift_sel_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_SEL, 0);
> >>> + pd_vio_shift_con_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_CON, 0);
> >>> +
> >>> + writel(0x1 << shift_bit, pd_vio_shift_sel_reg);
> >>> + writel(0x1, pd_vio_shift_con_reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!read_poll_timeout(pd_vio_shift_con_reg, 0x2))
> >>> + sync_done = 1;
> >>> + else
> >>> + pr_err(PFX "%s: Shift violation info failed\n", __func__);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Disable shift mechanism */
> >>
> >> Please add a comment explaining what the shift mechanism is about.
> >
> > Okay, I'll add a comment to explain it at the beginning of this
> > function.
> >
> >>
> >>> + writel(0x0, pd_vio_shift_con_reg);
> >>> + writel(0x0, pd_vio_shift_sel_reg);
> >>> + writel(0x1 << shift_bit, pd_vio_shift_sta_reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + return sync_done;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void devapc_vio_info_print(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_vio_info *vio_info = devapc_ctx->vio_info;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Print violation information */
> >>> + if (vio_info->write)
> >>> + pr_info(PFX "Write Violation\n");
> >>> + else if (vio_info->read)
> >>> + pr_info(PFX "Read Violation\n");
> >>> +
> >>> + pr_info(PFX "%s%x, %s%x, %s%x, %s%x\n",
> >>> + "Vio Addr:0x", vio_info->vio_addr,
> >>> + "High:0x", vio_info->vio_addr_high,
> >>> + "Bus ID:0x", vio_info->master_id,
> >>> + "Dom ID:0x", vio_info->domain_id);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void devapc_extract_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type)
> >>> +{
> >>> + void __iomem *vio_dbg0_reg, *vio_dbg1_reg;
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs_desc *vio_dbgs;
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_vio_info *vio_info;
> >>> + u32 dbg0;
> >>> +
> >>> + vio_dbg0_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, VIO_DBG0, 0);
> >>> + vio_dbg1_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type, VIO_DBG1, 0);
> >>> +
> >>> + vio_dbgs = devapc_ctx->vio_dbgs_desc;
> >>> + vio_info = devapc_ctx->vio_info;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Extract violation information */
> >>> + dbg0 = readl(vio_dbg0_reg);
> >>> + vio_info->vio_addr = readl(vio_dbg1_reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + vio_info->master_id = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs[MSTID].mask) >>
> >>> + vio_dbgs[MSTID].start_bit;
> >>> + vio_info->domain_id = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs[DMNID].mask) >>
> >>> + vio_dbgs[DMNID].start_bit;
> >>> + vio_info->write = ((dbg0 & vio_dbgs[VIO_W].mask) >>
> >>> + vio_dbgs[VIO_W].start_bit) == 1;
> >>> + vio_info->read = ((dbg0 & vio_dbgs[VIO_R].mask) >>
> >>> + vio_dbgs[VIO_R].start_bit) == 1;
> >>> + vio_info->vio_addr_high = (dbg0 & vio_dbgs[ADDR_H].mask) >>
> >>> + vio_dbgs[ADDR_H].start_bit;
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_vio_info_print(devapc_ctx);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg - shift & dump the violation debug information.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static bool mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx,
> >>> + int slave_type, int *vio_idx)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const struct mtk_device_info **device_info;
> >>> + u32 shift_bit;
> >>> + int i;
> >>> +
> >>> + device_info = devapc_ctx->device_info;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < get_vio_slave_num(slave_type); i++) {
> >>> + *vio_idx = device_info[slave_type][i].vio_index;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (check_vio_mask(devapc_ctx, slave_type, *vio_idx))
> >>> + continue;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!check_vio_status(devapc_ctx, slave_type, *vio_idx))
> >>> + continue;
> >>> +
> >>> + shift_bit = get_shift_group(devapc_ctx, slave_type, *vio_idx);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!sync_vio_dbg(devapc_ctx, slave_type, shift_bit))
> >>> + continue;
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_extract_vio_dbg(devapc_ctx, slave_type);
> >>> +
> >>> + return true;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + return false;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * devapc_violation_irq - the devapc Interrupt Service Routine (ISR) will dump
> >>> + * violation information including which master violates
> >>> + * access slave.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static irqreturn_t devapc_violation_irq(int irq_number,
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const struct mtk_device_info **device_info;
> >>> + int slave_type_num;
> >>> + int vio_idx = -1;
> >>> + int slave_type;
> >>> +
> >>> + slave_type_num = devapc_ctx->slave_type_num;
> >>> + device_info = devapc_ctx->device_info;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (slave_type = 0; slave_type < slave_type_num; slave_type++) {
> >>> + if (!mtk_devapc_dump_vio_dbg(devapc_ctx, slave_type, &vio_idx))
> >>> + continue;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Ensure that violation info are written before
> >>> + * further operations
> >>> + */
> >>> + smp_mb();
> >>> +
> >>> + mask_module_irq(devapc_ctx, slave_type, vio_idx, true);
> >>> +
> >>> + clear_vio_status(devapc_ctx, slave_type, vio_idx);
> >>> +
> >>> + mask_module_irq(devapc_ctx, slave_type, vio_idx, false);
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * start_devapc - initialize devapc status and start receiving interrupt
> >>> + * while devapc violation is triggered.
> >>> + */
> >>> +static void start_devapc(struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx)
> >>> +{
> >>> + const struct mtk_device_info **device_info;
> >>> + void __iomem *pd_vio_shift_sta_reg;
> >>> + void __iomem *pd_apc_con_reg;
> >>> + u32 vio_shift_sta;
> >>> + int slave_type, slave_type_num;
> >>> + int i, vio_idx;
> >>> +
> >>> + device_info = devapc_ctx->device_info;
> >>> + slave_type_num = devapc_ctx->slave_type_num;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (slave_type = 0; slave_type < slave_type_num; slave_type++) {
> >>> + pd_apc_con_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type,
> >>> + APC_CON, 0);
> >>> + pd_vio_shift_sta_reg = mtk_devapc_pd_get(devapc_ctx, slave_type,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_STA, 0);
> >>> + if (!pd_apc_con_reg || !pd_vio_shift_sta_reg)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Clear devapc violation status */
> >>> + writel(BIT(31), pd_apc_con_reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Clear violation shift status */
> >>> + vio_shift_sta = readl(pd_vio_shift_sta_reg);
> >>> + if (vio_shift_sta)
> >>> + writel(vio_shift_sta, pd_vio_shift_sta_reg);
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Clear slave violation status */
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < get_vio_slave_num(slave_type); i++) {
> >>> + vio_idx = device_info[slave_type][i].vio_index;
> >>> +
> >>> + clear_vio_status(devapc_ctx, slave_type, vio_idx);
> >>> +
> >>> + mask_module_irq(devapc_ctx, slave_type, vio_idx, false);
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int mtk_devapc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_context *devapc_ctx;
> >>> + struct clk *devapc_infra_clk;
> >>> + u32 vio_dbgs_num, pds_num;
> >>> + u8 slave_type_num;
> >>> + u32 devapc_irq;
> >>> + size_t size;
> >>> + int i, ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(node))
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_ctx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct mtk_devapc_context),
> >>> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (of_property_read_u8(node, "mediatek-slv_type_num", &slave_type_num))
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_ctx->slave_type_num = slave_type_num;
> >>> +
> >>> + size = slave_type_num * sizeof(void *);
> >>> + devapc_ctx->devapc_pd_base = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->devapc_pd_base)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + size = slave_type_num * sizeof(struct mtk_device_info *);
> >>> + devapc_ctx->device_info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->device_info)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < slave_type_num; i++) {
> >>> + devapc_ctx->devapc_pd_base[i] = of_iomap(node, i);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->devapc_pd_base[i])
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (i == 0)
> >>> + devapc_ctx->device_info[i] = mtk_devices_infra;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + size = sizeof(struct mtk_devapc_vio_info);
> >>> + devapc_ctx->vio_info = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->vio_info)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + vio_dbgs_num = of_property_count_u32_elems(node, "mediatek-vio_dbgs");
> >>> + if (vio_dbgs_num <= 0)
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> +
> >>> + size = (vio_dbgs_num / 2) * sizeof(struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs_desc);
> >>> + devapc_ctx->vio_dbgs_desc = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->vio_dbgs_desc)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < vio_dbgs_num / 2; i++) {
> >>> + if (of_property_read_u32_index(node, "mediatek-vio_dbgs",
> >>> + i * 2,
> >>> + &devapc_ctx->vio_dbgs_desc[i].mask))
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (of_property_read_u32_index(node, "mediatek-vio_dbgs",
> >>> + (i * 2) + 1,
> >>> + &devapc_ctx->vio_dbgs_desc[i].start_bit))
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + pds_num = of_property_count_u32_elems(node, "mediatek-pds_offset");
> >>> + if (pds_num <= 0)
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> +
> >>> + size = pds_num * sizeof(u32);
> >>> + devapc_ctx->pds_offset = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> + if (!devapc_ctx->pds_offset)
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < pds_num; i++) {
> >>> + if (of_property_read_u32_index(node, "mediatek-pds_offset", i,
> >>> + &devapc_ctx->pds_offset[i]))
> >>> + return -ENXIO;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> >>> + if (!devapc_irq)
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + devapc_infra_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "devapc-infra-clock");
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(devapc_infra_clk))
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (clk_prepare_enable(devapc_infra_clk))
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + start_devapc(devapc_ctx);
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, devapc_irq,
> >>> + (irq_handler_t)devapc_violation_irq,
> >>> + IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE, "devapc", devapc_ctx);
> >>> + if (ret)
> >>> + return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int mtk_devapc_remove(struct platform_device *dev)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static const struct of_device_id mtk_devapc_dt_match[] = {
> >>> + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6779-devapc" },
> >>> + {},
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +static struct platform_driver mtk_devapc_driver = {
> >>> + .probe = mtk_devapc_probe,
> >>> + .remove = mtk_devapc_remove,
> >>> + .driver = {
> >>> + .name = KBUILD_MODNAME,
> >>> + .of_match_table = mtk_devapc_dt_match,
> >>> + },
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +module_platform_driver(mtk_devapc_driver);
> >>> +
> >>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mediatek Device APC Driver");
> >>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Neal Liu <neal.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>");
> >>> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.h b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.h
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..ab2cb14
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.h
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,670 @@
> >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Copyright (C) 2020 MediaTek Inc.
> >>> + */
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifndef __MTK_DEVAPC_H__
> >>> +#define __MTK_DEVAPC_H__
> >>> +
> >>> +#define PFX "[DEVAPC]: "
> >>
> >> use dev_err() and friends instead.
> >
> > Okay, I'll remove it.
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +#define VIO_MASK_STA_REG_GET(m) \
> >>> +({ \
> >>> + typeof(m) (_m) = (m); \
> >>> + reg_index = _m / 32; \
> >>> + reg_offset = _m % 32; \
> >>> +})
> >>
> >> don't do that. no explicit variable assingment in a macro, the macro should
> >> return the value.
> >
> > Okay, I'll revise it in next patches.
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +enum DEVAPC_PD_REG_TYPE {
> >>> + VIO_MASK = 0,
> >>> + VIO_STA,
> >>> + VIO_DBG0,
> >>> + VIO_DBG1,
> >>> + APC_CON,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_STA,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_SEL,
> >>> + VIO_SHIFT_CON,
> >>> + PD_REG_TYPE_NUM,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +enum DEVAPC_VIO_DBGS_TYPE {
> >>> + MSTID = 0,
> >>> + DMNID,
> >>> + VIO_W,
> >>> + VIO_R,
> >>> + ADDR_H,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +struct mtk_device_info {
> >>> + int sys_index;
> >>> + int ctrl_index;
> >>> + int vio_index;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +static struct mtk_device_info mtk_devices_infra[] = {
> >>
> >> That's for mt6779, correct? Should be stated in the name.
> >
> > Okay. I have another way to reach the goal without using this struct
> > array. I'll send another patches.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +
> >>> +struct mtk_devapc_vio_info {
> >>> + bool read;
> >>> + bool write;
> >>> + u32 vio_addr;
> >>> + u32 vio_addr_high;
> >>> + u32 master_id;
> >>> + u32 domain_id;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs_desc {
> >>> + u32 mask;
> >>> + u32 start_bit;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +struct mtk_devapc_context {
> >>> + u8 slave_type_num;
> >>> + void __iomem **devapc_pd_base;
> >>> + const struct mtk_device_info **device_info;
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_vio_info *vio_info;
> >>> + struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs_desc *vio_dbgs_desc;
> >>> + u32 *pds_offset;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Not sure if I get this right:
> >>
> >> struct mtk_devapc_offset {
> >> u32 vio_mask;
> >> u32 vio_sta;
> >> u32 vio_dbg0;
> >> u32 vio_dbg1;
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> struct mtk_devapc_context {
> >> u8 pd_base_num;
> >> void __iomem **devapc_pd_base;
> >> struct mtk_devapc_offset *offset;
> >> const struct mtk_device_info **device_info;
> >> struct mtk_devapc_vio_info *vio_info;
> >> struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs_desc *vio_dbgs_desc;
> >> };
> >>
> >> With this I think we can get rid of mtk_devapc_pd_get().
> >>
> >
> > mtk_devapc_pd_get() is used to calculate the vaddr of devapc pd
> > register. It's based on different slave_type, pd_reg_type and reg_idx.
> > I don't think it can be replaced with such simple data structures.
> >
>
> How I understand the code:
> Every slave_type has a base memory represented by the **devapc_pd_base array.
> Inside each base memory chunk you have an offset depending on the pd_reg_type,
> but the offset is the same for all base memory chunks. This offset is
> represented by struct mtk_devapc_offset.
> If pd_reg_type is VIO_MASK or VIO_STA we have to further read the value based on
> an index represented by reg_idx. So if we add 0x4 for each reg_idx. So we have
> for example for:
> int check_vio_mask(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, inst slave_type, u32 module)
> {
> reg = ctx->devapc_pd_base[slave_type] + ctx->offset.vio_mask;
> reg += 0x4 * VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(module);
>
> value = readl(reg);
> return ((value >> VIO_TO_REG_OFF(module)) & 0x1);
> }
>
> similarly:
> u32 get_shift_group(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx, int slave_type, int vio_idx)
> {
> reg = ctx->devapc_pd_base[slave_type] + ctx->offset.vio_shift_sta;
>
> value = readl(reg);
> bit = __ffs(...);
> }
>
> What does us buy that? When looking on the function we understand how the
> register layout in HW looks like. We have a base value with an offset and in
> case of VIO_MASK and VIO_STA we have to shift the value.
>
Yes, you're right. We can do calculation in each place instead of
calling mtk_devapc_pd_get(). Is is better to do this instead of function
call?
Sorry for my misunderstanding about previous comments.
> By the way, right now in mtk_devapc_pd_get you are doing pointer arithmetic with
> a void pointer. That's not a good approach, please define the pointer to point
> to the value you want to read. I understand that's a 32 bit register.
>
> Regards
> Matthias
>
I'm not quite understand this comment. Does below arithmetic not meet
your statement? Could you explain more details?
reg = devapc_ctx->devapc_pd_base[slave_type] +
devapc_ctx->pds_offset[pd_reg_type];
> >
> >> Sorry I'm not able to review the whole driver right now. Please also have a look
> >> on my comments from v1.
> >>
> >> We will have to go little by little to get this into a good state. In case it
> >> makes sense to have this in the kernel at all.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Matthias
> >
> > I'm appreciated for your review. It helps me to write better code and
> > get closer to the kernel.
> >
> >
