On 05/05/16 14:35, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
> On Thursday 05 May 2016 07:03 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 05/05/16 14:09, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 06:38 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/16 11:32, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 03:43 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/05/16 12:39, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < soc->num_io_pads; ++i) {
>>>>>> + if (soc->io_pads_control[i].pad_id == pad_id)
>>>>>> + return soc->io_pads_control[i].dpd_bit_pos;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> Do we need a loop here? Can't we just make the table a look-up table
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> that the ID is just an index?
>>>>> We do not support the table for all pads and so for those non
>>>>> supported
>>>>> pad index, it will be 0 (default) and 0 is the valid bit position
>>>>> here.
>>>> That does make it tricky.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want table then we will need one more information for making
>>>>> that
>>>>> index as valid/invalid.
>>>>> We can pack the valid/invalid with bit position to make u32.
>>>> Another option would be, to have a single table for all devices and the
>>>> make the valid field a valid mask which has a bit for each SoC.
>>> We have 2 register for DPD and hence making the mask bit will need u64.
>>>
>>> I think we can have like below to avoid loop.
>>> struct tegra_io_pads_control {
>>> int dpd_supported;
>>> int voltage_change_supported;
>>> int dpd_config_bit;
>>> int voltage_config_bit;
>>> };
>> Why can't we have ...
>>
>> struct tegra_io_pads_control {
>> int dpd_config_bit;
>> int voltage_config_bit;
>> unsigned int soc_mask;
>> };
>>
>> Then .valid should indicate if it the IO pads group is valid for the
>> device ...
>>
>> .soc_mask = TEGRA_IO_PADS_T124
>> or
>> .soc_mask = TEGRA_IO_PADS_T210
>> or
>> .soc_mask = TEGRA_IO_PADS_T124 | TEGRA_IO_PADS_T210
>>
>> You can use -1 to indicate the for the dpd and voltage bit to indicate
>> if they are valid. In other words, you need to check the IO pad is valid
>> for the soc and then the bit is valid.
>
> This will also work.
> Then this is not required part of the soc data.
> Only soc_io_mask need to be part of soc data.
> This table can be file static.
Ok.
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is exactly what enums are for, then you don't have to
>>>> explicitly define each number.
>>>>
>>> We have defines in the dt binding header.
>> Nothing to stop us including the dt binding header in the pmc.c. We do
>> this for tegra clks.
> The dt binding header is not there and need to add.
> Part of this patch or different patch?
>
> Also we can not have enums in binding header. Only macros/defines.
>
> We do not have the dt binding doc yet as it will be in future patch.
OK. For now put it in the pmc.h and we can always move to dt-bindings later.
>>> BTW, are you fine to keep TEGRA_IO_PAD_* as defines instead of enums.
>>> This is what POWERGATE are there.
>> Up to you, I prefer an enum. The POWERGATE IDs defines match the bit in
>> the register so it makes sense these are explicit.
>>
> OK, let me make enums. Last member as MAX so that I can initialize the
> tegra_io_pad_info[TEGRA_IO_PAD_MAX] =
OK.
Cheers
Jon
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
