Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for your advise.
On 2023/7/4 03:37, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
[ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 03:29:31PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
Hi,
On 03/07/2023 11:31, =Xianwei Zhao wrote:
From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add support for C3 Power controller. C3 power control
registers are in secure domain, and should be accessed by SMC.
Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
index 25b4b71df9b8..39ccc8f2e630 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-secure-pwrc.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/meson-a1-power.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/meson-s4-power.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/power/amlogic-c3-power.h>
#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
#include <linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
@@ -132,6 +133,22 @@ static struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain_desc s4_pwrc_domains[] = {
SEC_PD(S4_AUDIO, 0),
};
+static struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain_desc c3_pwrc_domains[] = {
+ SEC_PD(C3_NNA, 0),
+ SEC_PD(C3_AUDIO, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_SDIOA, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_EMMC, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_USB_COMB, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_SDCARD, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_ETH, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_GE2D, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_CVE, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_GDC_WRAP, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_ISP_TOP, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_MIPI_ISP_WRAP, GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON),
+ SEC_PD(C3_VCODEC, 0),
+};
Please move this struct before _s4_
+
static int meson_secure_pwrc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
int i;
@@ -179,7 +196,7 @@ static int meson_secure_pwrc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
for (i = 0 ; i < match->count ; ++i) {
struct meson_secure_pwrc_domain *dom = &pwrc->domains[i];
- if (!match->domains[i].index)
+ if (!match->domains[i].name)
Is this change necessary ? If yes please move it to another patch
and explain it's purpose. If it fixes something, add a Fixes tag so
it can be backported.
Thanks,
Neil
I suppose, this change fixes the situation with SEC_PD(C3_NNA, 0)
domain, because it has index == 0.
That's true.
May be it's better to introduce the separate struct member for that? For
example, 'present' (true or false).
I think code would be more readable and clean.
> [...]
--
Thank you,
Dmitry
