On Mon 24 Oct 08:55 PDT 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
> q6v55 use different regulator and clock resource than q6v5, hence
> using separate resource handling for same.
> Also reset register
> programming in q6v55 is non secure so resource controller init-
> ilization is not required for q6v55.
The reset comes from GCC, so please use the fact that gcc already is a
reset-controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 271 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 271 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> index 8df95a0..c7dca40 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> @@ -215,6 +215,203 @@ static void q6v5_regulator_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> regulator_set_voltage(mss, 0, 1150000);
> }
>
> +static int q6v55_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].supply = "vdd_cx";
> + qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].supply = "vdd_mx";
> + qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].supply = "vdd_pll";
> +
> + ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(qproc->dev,
> + (ARRAY_SIZE(qproc->supply) - 1), qproc->supply);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get supplies\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
This is very very similar to the existing q6v5_regulator_init, please
figure out a way to make the mss supply optional here instead of
creating a new function.
> +
> +static int q6v55_clk_enable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->ahb_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->axi_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_axi_clk;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->rom_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_rom_clk;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_gpll0_mss_clk;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_snoc_axi_clk;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_mnoc_axi_clk;
I believe it would be better to turn the clocks into an array, like the
regulators, so that we can loop over them rather than listing them
explicitly.
> +
> + return 0;
> +err_mnoc_axi_clk:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> +err_snoc_axi_clk:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> +err_gpll0_mss_clk:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
> +err_rom_clk:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
> +err_axi_clk:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +out:
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Clk Vote Failed\n");
I believe the clock framework will complain if above fails, so no need
to add another print here.
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void q6v55_clk_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
> + if (!qproc->ahb_clk_vote)
Why do you check ahb_clk_vote in the disable case but not in the enable
case?
Also, please move all ahb_clk_vote handling into the same patch.
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +}
> +
> +static int q6v55_proxy_vote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> + struct regulator *mx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer;
> + struct regulator *cx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer;
> + struct regulator *vdd_pll = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(mx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
I'm not convinced that we should vote MAX as minimum voltage here, is it
not 1.05V as in the q6v5?
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for vreg_mx\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_enable(mx);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to enable vreg_mx\n");
> + goto err_mx_enable;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(cx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to request vdd_cx voltage.\n");
> + goto err_cx_voltage;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_load(cx, 100000);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_cx mode.\n");
> + goto err_cx_set_load;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_enable(cx);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_cx\n");
> + goto err_cx_enable;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 1800000, 1800000);
PLL is fed from a fixed voltage regulator of 1.8V, so we do not need to
request a voltage (per Mark Brown's request).
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for vdd_pll\n");
> + goto err_vreg_pll_set_vol;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 10000);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_pll mode.\n");
> + goto err_vreg_pll_load;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_enable(vdd_pll);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_pll\n");
> + goto err_vreg_pll_enable;
> + }
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->xo);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_xo_vote;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_pnoc_vote;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->qdss_clk);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_qdss_vote;
> + qproc->unvote_flag = false;
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_qdss_vote:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> +err_pnoc_vote:
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
> +err_xo_vote:
> + regulator_disable(vdd_pll);
> +err_vreg_pll_enable:
> + regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 0);
> +err_vreg_pll_load:
> + regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 0, INT_MAX);
> +err_vreg_pll_set_vol:
> + regulator_disable(cx);
> +err_cx_enable:
> + regulator_set_load(cx, 0);
> +err_cx_set_load:
> + regulator_set_voltage(cx, 0, INT_MAX);
> +err_cx_voltage:
> + regulator_disable(mx);
> +err_mx_enable:
> + regulator_set_voltage(mx, 0, INT_MAX);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
As with the init function, this is very similar to the q6v5 case, so I
don't think we need to have separate functions for it.
A side note on this is that clk_prepare_enable(NULL) is valid, so if you
distinguish between the two cases during initialisation and put all
clocks in an array you could just call clk_prepare_enable() on all of
them, which will skip the ones that isn't initialised.
> +
> +static void q6v55_proxy_unvote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> + if (!qproc->unvote_flag) {
I don't think the "unvote_flag" is good design and don't see how you
would end up unvoting multiple times based on my original design.
But again, the answer is probably in some other patch - i.e. please
group your patches so I can see each step in its entirety.
> + regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer);
> + regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer, 0);
> + regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer);
> + regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer, 0);
> + regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer,
> + 0, INT_MAX);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->qdss_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> + clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
> +
> + regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer);
> + regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer,
> + 0, INT_MAX);
> + }
> + qproc->unvote_flag = true;
> +}
> +
> +static void pil_mss_restart_reg(struct q6v5 *qproc, u32 mss_restart)
> +{
> + if (qproc->restart_reg) {
> + writel_relaxed(mss_restart, qproc->restart_reg);
> + udelay(2);
> + }
> +}
Drop this
> +
> static int q6v5_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
> {
> struct q6v5 *qproc = rproc->priv;
> @@ -751,6 +948,65 @@ static int q6v5_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int q6v55_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> + qproc->ahb_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "iface");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get iface clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "bus");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->axi_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get bus clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->axi_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->rom_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mem");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->rom_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mem clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->rom_clk);
> + }
These three are the same as q6v5...
> +
> + qproc->snoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "snoc_axi_clk");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get snoc_axi_clk\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->mnoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mnoc_axi_clk");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mnoc_axi_clk clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->gpll0_mss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "gpll0_mss_clk");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get gpll0_mss_clk clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->xo = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "xo");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->xo)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get xo\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->xo);
> + }
And q6v5 will need "xo" as well, I missed this one.
> +
> + qproc->pnoc_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "pnoc");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get pnoc_clk clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> + }
> +
> + qproc->qdss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "qdss");
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get qdss_clk clock\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk);
> + }
> +
I would rather see that we have a single init_clocks function that based
on compatible will get the appropriate clocks.
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> {
> qproc->mss_restart = devm_reset_control_get(qproc->dev, NULL);
> @@ -762,6 +1018,21 @@ static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int q6v55_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc, struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct resource *res;
> +
> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "restart_reg");
> + qproc->restart_reg = devm_ioremap(qproc->dev, res->start,
> + resource_size(res));
> + if (IS_ERR(qproc->restart_reg)) {
> + dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get restart_reg\n");
> + return PTR_ERR(qproc->restart_reg);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
Drop this
> +
> static int q6v5_request_irq(struct q6v5 *qproc,
> struct platform_device *pdev,
> const char *name,
> --
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
