On 06/09/2022 11:49, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
Hi Matthias, On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:17:58PM +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:On 22/08/2022 16:43, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:From: Alexandre Bailon <abailon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> This updates the power domain to support WAY_EN operations. These operations enable a path between different units of the chip and are labeled as 'way_en' in the register descriptions.
If you can come up with a more verbose description of WAY_EN functionality it would be appreciated, although I know it's not always easy to get that information. 10 years in it will help to understand better what this is about.
This operation is required by the mt8365 for the MM power domain. Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bailon <abailon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Fabien Parent <fparent@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Notes: Changes in v3: - Separated the way_en functions for clarity - Added some checks for infracfg_nao Changes in v2: - some minor style fixes. - Renamed 'wayen' to 'way_en' to clarify the meaning - Updated commit message drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c | 162 +++++++++++++++++++++----- drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.h | 28 +++-- 2 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c index 9734f1091c69..c2cbe0de6aa1 100644 --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ struct scpsys_domain { struct clk_bulk_data *clks; int num_subsys_clks; struct clk_bulk_data *subsys_clks; + struct regmap *infracfg_nao; struct regmap *infracfg; struct regmap *smi; struct regulator *supply; @@ -117,26 +118,61 @@ static int scpsys_sram_disable(struct scpsys_domain *pd) MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); } -static int _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, struct regmap *regmap) +static int __scpsys_bus_protect_enable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, + struct regmap *regmap) +{ + u32 val; + u32 mask = bpd->bus_prot_mask; + u32 sta_mask = bpd->bus_prot_sta_mask; + + if (bpd->bus_prot_reg_update) + regmap_set_bits(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_set, mask); + else + regmap_write(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_set, mask); + + return regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_sta, val, + (val & sta_mask) == sta_mask, + MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); +} + +static int scpsys_bus_way_disable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, + struct regmap *regmap, + struct regmap *ack_regmap) +{ + u32 val; + u32 mask = bpd->bus_prot_mask; + u32 sta_mask = bpd->bus_prot_sta_mask; + + if (bpd->bus_prot_reg_update) + regmap_clear_bits(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_set, mask); + else + regmap_write(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_set, mask);
BUS_PROT_WAY_EN sets bus_prot_reg_update to true, what do we need the else branch for?
+ + if (bpd->ignore_clr_ack) + return 0;
Same here, ignore_clr_ack is always false.Actually it seems to me that __scpsys_bus_protect_enable and scpsys_bus_way_disable is nearly the same (other regmap, regmap_clear_bits instead of set_bits). Can't we put the check of way_en in e.g. the old _scpsys_bus_protect_enable to get rid of all the code duplication?
+ + return regmap_read_poll_timeout(ack_regmap, bpd->bus_prot_sta, val, + (val & sta_mask) == sta_mask, + MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); +} + +static int _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, + struct regmap *regmap, struct regmap *infracfg_nao) { int i, ret; for (i = 0; i < SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA; i++) { - u32 val, mask = bpd[i].bus_prot_mask; - - if (!mask) + if (!bpd[i].bus_prot_mask) break; - if (bpd[i].bus_prot_reg_update) - regmap_set_bits(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_set, mask); + if (bpd[i].way_en) + ret = scpsys_bus_way_disable(&bpd[i], regmap, infracfg_nao); else - regmap_write(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_set, mask); - - ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_sta, - val, (val & mask) == mask, - MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); - if (ret) + ret = __scpsys_bus_protect_enable(&bpd[i], regmap); + if (ret) { + pr_err("%s %d %d\n", __PRETTY_FUNCTION__, __LINE__, ret); return ret; + } } return 0; @@ -146,37 +182,71 @@ static int scpsys_bus_protect_enable(struct scpsys_domain *pd) { int ret; - ret = _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_infracfg, pd->infracfg); + ret = _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_infracfg, + pd->infracfg, pd->infracfg_nao); if (ret) return ret; - return _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_smi, pd->smi); + return _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_smi, pd->smi, NULL); +} + +static int __scpsys_bus_protect_disable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, + struct regmap *regmap) +{ + u32 val; + u32 mask = bpd->bus_prot_mask; + u32 sta_mask = bpd->bus_prot_sta_mask; + + if (bpd->bus_prot_reg_update) + regmap_clear_bits(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_clr, mask); + else + regmap_write(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_clr, mask); + + if (bpd->ignore_clr_ack) + return 0; + + return regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_sta, val, + !(val & sta_mask), MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, + MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); +} + +static int scpsys_bus_way_enable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, + struct regmap *regmap, + struct regmap *ack_regmap) +{ + u32 val; + u32 mask = bpd->bus_prot_mask; + u32 sta_mask = bpd->bus_prot_sta_mask; + + if (bpd->bus_prot_reg_update) + regmap_set_bits(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_clr, mask); + else + regmap_write(regmap, bpd->bus_prot_clr, mask);
same as disable case.
+ + return regmap_read_poll_timeout(ack_regmap, bpd->bus_prot_sta, val, + (val & sta_mask) == sta_mask, + MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); } static int _scpsys_bus_protect_disable(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, - struct regmap *regmap) + struct regmap *regmap, + struct regmap *infracfg_nao) { int i, ret; for (i = SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA - 1; i >= 0; i--) { - u32 val, mask = bpd[i].bus_prot_mask; - - if (!mask) + if (!bpd[i].bus_prot_mask) continue; - if (bpd[i].bus_prot_reg_update) - regmap_clear_bits(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_clr, mask); + if (bpd[i].way_en) + ret = scpsys_bus_way_enable(&bpd[i], regmap, + infracfg_nao); else - regmap_write(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_clr, mask); - - if (bpd[i].ignore_clr_ack) - continue; - - ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_sta, - val, !(val & mask), - MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT); - if (ret) + ret = __scpsys_bus_protect_disable(&bpd[i], regmap); + if (ret) { + pr_err("%s %d %d\n", __PRETTY_FUNCTION__, __LINE__, ret); return ret; + } } return 0; @@ -186,11 +256,12 @@ static int scpsys_bus_protect_disable(struct scpsys_domain *pd) { int ret; - ret = _scpsys_bus_protect_disable(pd->data->bp_smi, pd->smi); + ret = _scpsys_bus_protect_disable(pd->data->bp_smi, pd->smi, NULL); if (ret) return ret; - return _scpsys_bus_protect_disable(pd->data->bp_infracfg, pd->infracfg); + return _scpsys_bus_protect_disable(pd->data->bp_infracfg, + pd->infracfg, pd->infracfg_nao); } static int scpsys_regulator_enable(struct regulator *supply) @@ -294,6 +365,21 @@ static int scpsys_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) return 0; } +static bool scpsys_bp_infracfg_has_way_en(const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd) +{ + int i; + + for (i = 0; i < SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA; i++) { + if (!bpd[i].bus_prot_mask) + break;So MT8365_POWER_DOMAIN_MM will return false as the first member of bp_infracfg is BUS_PROT_WR(...)I am not sure I understand what you mean. Why should it break out of the loop if the first member is a BUS_PROT_WR()? BUS_PROT_WR() sets a mask as well which is checked here exactly the same way as is done in _scpsys_bus_protect_enable() even before this patch.
Right, my error, please see comment further down about the new macros.
This is only a loop condition. Actually I can move it into the loop header as well. Either you define SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA fields or you have to exit if you find a field that is empty, basically the mask not being set.Apart from that, why don't you use a CAPS to acheive the same?
Just in case you missed that. I'd pretty much prefer to add a caps to scpsys_domain_data signaling that the power domain uses WAY_EN.
+ + if (bpd[i].way_en) + return true; + } + + return false; +} + static struct generic_pm_domain *scpsys_add_one_domain(struct scpsys *scpsys, struct device_node *node) { @@ -364,6 +450,20 @@ generic_pm_domain *scpsys_add_one_domain(struct scpsys *scpsys, struct device_no return ERR_CAST(pd->smi); } + if (scpsys_bp_infracfg_has_way_en(pd->data->bp_smi)) { + dev_err(scpsys->dev, "bp_smi does not support WAY_EN\n");Do we really need to check the correctness of the driver data at runtime?bp_smi is called without a infracfg_nao regmap. If we don't check it here, we need to make a check during bus protection operations. Last time I got a review to not do it during in the bus protection path.
Maybe I'm missing something here but bpi_smi is defined in the scpsys_domain_data. Why do we need to check at runtime if the SoC specific data hardcoded in the dirver is correct? What am I missing here?
Apart do I understand correctly that the second call to _scpsys_bus_protect_enable() in scpsys_bus_protect_enable() will never use way_en? My understanding that this also holds for the disable path. Can't we remodel the code that in this case we don't loop over scpsys_bus_prot_data and check for way_en?
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); + } + + pd->infracfg_nao = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_optional( + node, "mediatek,infracfg_nao");Not in the binding description.Thanks, I will fix that for the next version.+ if (IS_ERR(pd->infracfg_nao)) { + if (scpsys_bp_infracfg_has_way_en(pd->data->bp_infracfg)) + return ERR_CAST(pd->infracfg_nao); + + pd->infracfg_nao = NULL; + } + num_clks = of_clk_get_parent_count(node); if (num_clks > 0) { /* Calculate number of subsys_clks */ diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.h b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.h index 7d3c0c36316c..974c68a1d89c 100644 --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.h +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.h @@ -41,23 +41,29 @@ #define SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA 6 -#define _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, _update, _ignore) { \ - .bus_prot_mask = (_mask), \ - .bus_prot_set = _set, \ - .bus_prot_clr = _clr, \ - .bus_prot_sta = _sta, \ - .bus_prot_reg_update = _update, \ - .ignore_clr_ack = _ignore, \ +#define _BUS_PROT(_mask, _sta_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, _update, _ignore, _way_en) { \
_sta_mask is second parameter but not second member of the struct. That makes reading the driver unnecessary complicated.
+ .bus_prot_mask = (_mask), \ + .bus_prot_set = _set, \ + .bus_prot_clr = _clr, \ + .bus_prot_sta = _sta, \ + .bus_prot_sta_mask = _sta_mask, \ + .bus_prot_reg_update = _update, \ + .ignore_clr_ack = _ignore, \ + .way_en = _way_en, \ } #define BUS_PROT_WR(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta) \ - _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, false, false) + _BUS_PROT(_mask, _mask, _set, _clr, _sta, false, false, false) #define BUS_PROT_WR_IGN(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta) \ - _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, false, true) + _BUS_PROT(_mask, _mask, _set, _clr, _sta, false, true, false) #define BUS_PROT_UPDATE(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta) \ - _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, true, false) + _BUS_PROT(_mask, _mask, _set, _clr, _sta, true, false, false) + +#define BUS_PROT_WAY_EN(_en_mask, _sta_mask, _set, _sta) \ + _BUS_PROT(_en_mask, _sta_mask, _set, _set, _sta, true, false, \ + true) #define BUS_PROT_UPDATE_TOPAXI(_mask) \ BUS_PROT_UPDATE(_mask, \ @@ -70,8 +76,10 @@ struct scpsys_bus_prot_data { u32 bus_prot_set; u32 bus_prot_clr; u32 bus_prot_sta; + u32 bus_prot_sta_mask;I'm not very happy with the naming. In the end we need an extra mask for bus protection using WAY_EN. But right now I can't come up with a good name.I think the naming is good as it is a specific mask for the status register. bus_prot_mask is now basically only responsible for set and clr. Maybe renaming bus_prot_mask to bus_prot_set_clr_mask is better?
Yes makes sense. Please add this as an extra patch for easier review. Regards, Matthias
Thanks, MarkusRegards, Matthiasbool bus_prot_reg_update; bool ignore_clr_ack; + bool way_en; }; /**
