On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 03:12:03PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
> Avoid writing unavailable register in BAM-Lite mode.
> BAM_DESC_CNT_TRSHLD register is unavailable in BAM-Lite
> mode. Its only available in BAM-NDP mode. So only write
> this register for clients who is using BAM-NDP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
What are we actually fixing here? Which platform is affected? Is there a
crash, reset, or incorrect behavior?
We have had this code for years without reported issues, with both
BAM-NDP and BAM-Lite instances. The register documentation on APQ8016E
documents the BAM_DESC_CNT_TRSHLD register even for the BAM-Lite
instance. There is a comment that it doesn't apply to BAM-Lite, but I
would expect the written value just ends up being ignored in that case.
Also, there is not just BAM-NDP and BAM-Lite, but also plain "BAM". What
about that one? Should we write to BAM_DESC_CNT_TRSHLD?
> ---
> Change in [v4]
>
> * Added in_range() macro
>
> Change in [v3]
>
> * Removed BAM_LITE macro
>
> * Updated commit message
>
> * Adjusted if condition check
>
> * Renamed BAM-NDP macro to BAM_NDP_REVISION_START and
> BAM_NDP_REVISION_END
>
> Change in [v2]
>
> * Replace 0xff with REVISION_MASK in the statement
> bdev->bam_revision = val & REVISION_MASK
>
> Change in [v1]
>
> * Added initial patch
>
> drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> index bbc3276992bb..c14557efd577 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> @@ -59,6 +59,9 @@ struct bam_desc_hw {
> #define DESC_FLAG_NWD BIT(12)
> #define DESC_FLAG_CMD BIT(11)
>
> +#define BAM_NDP_REVISION_START 0x20
> +#define BAM_NDP_REVISION_END 0x27
> +
Are you sure this covers all SoCs we support upstream? If one of the
older or newer supported SoCs uses a value outside of this range, it
will now be missing the register write.
Thanks,
Stephan
