Re: [PATCH v2 09/16] reset: starfive-jh7100: Add StarFive JH7100 reset driver

[Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 17:55, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 05:36:21PM +0200, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 17:25, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 16:50, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:25 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > AFAICS they are sequential 4 32-bit registers.
> > > >
> > > > That's right, but we're on a 64bit machine, so DECLARE_BITMAP will
> > > > give us an unsigned long array that doesn't match that.
> > >
> > > I didn't get it, sorry.
> > > You will have a bitmap array which you will split to 32-bit values.
> > > What you will probably need is to move  xgpio_get_value32() and void
> > > xgpio_set_value32() to the one of bitmap related headers (look for
> > > bitmap_get_value8() and friends).
> > >
> > > > > So bitmap is exactly what is suitable here, you are right!
> > > > > See gpio-xilinx and gpio-pca953x on how to use bitmaps in the GPIO drivers.
> > > >
> > > > None of them has a pre-initialized const DECLARE_BITMAP, so they don't
> > > > have to deal with the 4 vs. 2 commas problem.
> > >
> > > I believe it's well possible to refactor this to look much better with
> > > bitmaps (as it represents the hardware very well).
> >
> > Right, but how exactly? This works on on 64bit, but not with 32bit COMPILE_TEST:
> >
> > static const DECLARE_BITMAP(jh7100_reset_asserted, JH7100_RSTN_END) = {
> >         /* STATUS0 register */
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_U74) |
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_VP6_DRESET) |
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_VP6_BRESET) |
> >         /* STATUS1 register */
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_DRESET) |
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_BRESET),
> >         /* STATUS2 register */
> >         BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_E24) |
> >         /* STATUS3 register */
> >         0,
> > };
>
> BITMAP_FROM_U64() ?

So you think this is better?

static const DECLARE_BITMAP(jh7100_reset_asserted, JH7100_RSTN_END) = {
        BITMAP_FROM_U64(
                /* STATUS0 register */
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_U74) |
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_VP6_DRESET) |
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_VP6_BRESET) |
                /* STATUS1 register */
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_DRESET) |
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_BRESET)
        ),
        BITMAP_FROM_U64(
                /* STATUS2 register */
                BIT_MASK(JH7100_RST_E24) |
                /* STATUS3 register */
                0
        ),
};

> > > > > > Also is there a macro for handling that we'd then need 4 commas on
> > > > > > 32bit COMPILE_TEST and 2 commas on 64bit?
> > > > > > If you have some other way in mind you'll have to be a lot more explicit again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The point of the jh7100_reset_asserted array is that it exactly
> > > > > > mirrors the values of the status registers when the lines are
> > > > > > asserted.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv