Hi Sudeep,
在 2023/9/21 10:27, lihuisong (C) 写道:
在 2023/9/20 22:11, Sudeep Holla 写道:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 02:47:03PM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
Currently, HCCS driver directly uses Generic Communications Channel
Shared
Memory Region which is used in type0/1/2 to communicate with platform,
but actually doesn't support type3/4/5.
So this patch adds the check for PCC subspace type.
Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soc/hisilicon/kunpeng_hccs.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/hisilicon/kunpeng_hccs.c
b/drivers/soc/hisilicon/kunpeng_hccs.c
index f3810d9d1caa..4ba3bfd45a01 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/hisilicon/kunpeng_hccs.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/hisilicon/kunpeng_hccs.c
@@ -174,6 +174,19 @@ static int hccs_register_pcc_channel(struct
hccs_dev *hdev)
return rc;
}
+static int hccs_check_pcc_info(struct hccs_dev *hdev)
+{
+ struct pcc_mbox_chan *pcc_chan = hdev->cl_info.pcc_chan;
+
+ if (pcc_chan->type >= ACPI_PCCT_TYPE_EXT_PCC_MASTER_SUBSPACE) {
+ dev_err(hdev->dev, "unsupport for subspace type%u.\n",
+ pcc_chan->type);
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
Is this the only use of the PCC type information you have or do you
plan to
use it for something other than the validation.
Yeah, it is just validation now. we want to plan this driver can
support more types.
Just for sake of argument, I can say all users of PCC must then do the
similar validation. I don't know where to draw the line here.
If export PCC type, it is good for the user of PCC to be more
universal and more compatible.
Ideally I would expect the driver to make this transparent and give
error
during transmit if not supported.
I understand you.
I just check this type only once during the initializing phase.
Otherwise, every once need to verify it when send PCC command.
The driver must be able to work with different PCC type to support
variety
of platforms TBH. What is the issue exactly here ? Is this to prevent
the
Agree more with you.
IMO, the user of PCC has the ability to support variety of platforms
if they can get PCC type.
In this case, to prevent type 4 is necessary if driver cannot act as a
slave.
on the other hand, If one driver acts as a slave, platform must supply
slave subspace for them.
use of Type 4 ? I think we must do something better but I don't know
what
that is yet.
Yes, we can try to do it better. I have a concern, like below.
You know that the use of PCC can use polling mode and interrupt mode
to communicate with platform.
I'm not sure if the obtaining of the polling mode and interrupt mode
is an issue to prevent driver to be more universal.
But this driver can know if they support interrupt mode based on
struct mbox_chan::struct mbox_controller::txdone_irq after requesting
PCC channel.
Because I'm not sure it's a better way.
You know that drivers used interrupt mode need to fill the rx_callback
function into mbx_client when register PCC channel.
And drivers used polling mode don't do it.
If we use this way, drivers that both support the two mode have to
modify the rx_callback pointer after requesting PCC channel.
What do you feeling about the comments montioned above?
Maybe we still need to export the information whether the platform
support interrupt before requesting PCC channel.
Looking forward your reply.
.
