Le 10/02/2025 à 14:18,
patrice.chotard-rj0Iel/JR4NBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard-rj0Iel/JR4NBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Octo Memory Manager driver (OMM) manages:
- the muxing between 2 OSPI busses and 2 output ports.
There are 4 possible muxing configurations:
- direct mode (no multiplexing): OSPI1 output is on port 1 and OSPI2
output is on port 2
- OSPI1 and OSPI2 are multiplexed over the same output port 1
- swapped mode (no multiplexing), OSPI1 output is on port 2,
OSPI2 output is on port 1
- OSPI1 and OSPI2 are multiplexed over the same output port 2
- the split of the memory area shared between the 2 OSPI instances.
- chip select selection override.
- the time between 2 transactions in multiplexed mode.
- check firewall access.
...
diff --git a/drivers/memory/stm32_omm.c b/drivers/memory/stm32_omm.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..af69137bfba2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/memory/stm32_omm.c
@@ -0,0 +1,520 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL
Not sure this SPDX-License-Identifier exists.
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) STMicroelectronics 2024 - All Rights Reserved
...
+ pm_runtime_enable(dev);
+
+ /* check if OMM's resource access is granted */
+ ret = stm32_omm_check_access(dev, dev->of_node);
+ if (ret < 0 && ret != -EACCES)
+ goto err_clk_release;
Should we call, here and below, pm_runtime_disable() in the error
handling path, as done in the remove function?
+
+ if (!ret && child_access_granted == OMM_CHILD_NB) {
+ /* Ensure both OSPI instance are disabled before configuring OMM */
+ ret = stm32_omm_disable_child(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_clk_release;
+
+ ret = stm32_omm_configure(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_clk_release;
+ } else {
+ dev_dbg(dev, "Octo Memory Manager resource's access not granted\n");
+ /*
+ * AMCR can't be set, so check if current value is coherent
+ * with memory-map areas defined in DT
+ */
+ ret = stm32_omm_set_amcr(dev, false);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_clk_release;
+ }
+
+ /* for each child, if resource access is granted and status "okay", probe it */
+ for (i = 0; i < omm->nb_child; i++) {
+ if (!child_access[i] || !of_device_is_available(omm->child[i].node))
+ continue;
+
+ vdev = of_platform_device_create(omm->child[i].node, NULL, NULL);
+ if (!vdev) {
+ dev_err(dev, "Failed to create Octo Memory Manager child\n");
+ for (j = i; j > 0; --j) {
+ if (omm->child[j].dev)
+ of_platform_device_destroy(omm->child[j].dev, NULL);
+ }
+
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err_clk_release;
+ }
+ omm->child[i].dev = &vdev->dev;
+ }
+
+err_clk_release:
+ for (i = 0; i < omm->nb_child; i++)
+ clk_put(omm->child[i].clk);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void stm32_omm_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct stm32_omm *omm = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < omm->nb_child; i++)
+ if (omm->child[i].dev)
+ of_platform_device_destroy(omm->child[i].dev, NULL);
+
+ if (omm->cr & CR_MUXEN)
+ stm32_omm_enable_child_clock(&pdev->dev, false);
+
+ pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
Should we have:
for (i = 0; i < omm->nb_child; i++)
clk_put(omm->child[i].clk);
as done in the error handling path of the probe?
+}
+
+static const struct of_device_id stm32_omm_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "st,stm32mp25-omm", },
+ {},
Nitpick: Unneeded , after a terminator.
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, stm32_omm_of_match);
...
CJ
