On 2/21/2022 2:47 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Manikanta Pubbisetty <quic_mpubbise@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 1/28/2022 3:50 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
Manikanta Pubbisetty <quic_mpubbise@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Remove core PCI and ath11k PCI references(struct ath11k_pci)
from PCI common code. Since, PCI common code will be used
by hybrid bus devices, this code should be independent
from ATH11K PCI references and Linux core PCI references
like struct pci_dev.
Since this change introduces function callbacks for bus wakeup
and bus release operations, wakeup_mhi HW param is no longer
needed and hence it is removed completely. Alternatively, bus
wakeup/release ops for QCA9074 are initialized to NULL as
QCA9704 does not need bus wakeup/release for register accesses.
Tested-on: WCN6750 hw1.0 AHB WLAN.MSL.1.0.1-00573-QCAMSLSWPLZ-1
Tested-on: WCN6855 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-01720.1-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_LITE-1
Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.5.0.1-01100-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
Tested-on: IPQ8074 hw2.0 AHB WLAN.HK.2.4.0.1-00192-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
Signed-off-by: Manikanta Pubbisetty <quic_mpubbise@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
@@ -651,6 +653,13 @@ struct ath11k_bus_params {
bool fixed_bdf_addr;
bool fixed_mem_region;
bool static_window_map;
+ struct {
+ void (*wakeup)(struct ath11k_base *ab);
+ void (*release)(struct ath11k_base *ab);
+ int (*get_msi_irq)(struct ath11k_base *ab, unsigned int vector);
+ void (*window_write32)(struct ath11k_base *ab, u32 offset, u32 value);
+ u32 (*window_read32)(struct ath11k_base *ab, u32 offset);
+ } ops;
};
Please don't use bus_params for this, I'm starting to suspect that we
actually need to remove struct ath11k_bus_params altogether. It would be
cleaner to have separate 'struct ath11k_pci_ops' or something like that.
Sure, something like 'struct ath11k_bus_ops' in ath11k_base struct
would be appropriate.
But we have 'struct ath11k_hif_ops' already, and that's basically
ath11k_bus_ops with a confusing name :) (IIRC HIF means Host InterFace,
or something like that.) So having both ath11k_bus_ops and
ath11k_hif_ops would become even more confusing.
You are basically abstracting out PCI functionality, that's why I
suggested ath11k_pci_ops. But yeah, naming is hard :)
Hmmm, makes sense :)
