On 12-01-21, 16:01, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:17 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static int geni_se_select_gpi_mode(struct geni_se *se)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int geni_dma_mode = 0;
> > + unsigned int gpi_event_en = 0;
> > + unsigned int common_geni_m_irq_en = 0;
> > + unsigned int common_geni_s_irq_en = 0;
> > +
> > + common_geni_m_irq_en = readl_relaxed(se->base + SE_GENI_M_IRQ_EN);
> > + common_geni_s_irq_en = readl_relaxed(se->base + SE_GENI_S_IRQ_EN);
> > + common_geni_m_irq_en &=
> > + ~(M_CMD_DONE_EN | M_TX_FIFO_WATERMARK_EN |
> > + M_RX_FIFO_WATERMARK_EN | M_RX_FIFO_LAST_EN);
> > + common_geni_s_irq_en &= ~S_CMD_DONE_EN;
> > + geni_dma_mode = readl_relaxed(se->base + SE_GENI_DMA_MODE_EN);
>
> Do you really need to do a read/modify/write of SE_GENI_DMA_MODE_EN?
> It's a register with a single bit in it. Just set the bit, no? There
> are cases where read-modify-write is the correct thing to do but IMO
> it shouldn't be the default way of working. If code is initting a
> register to a default state it should just be setting the register.
> If some later incarnation of the hardware comes along and adds extra
> bits to this register then, sure, we might have to modify the code.
> However, it has the advantage where we aren't left at the whims of
> whatever was programmed by whatever version of whatever firmware was
> running on the device. I've been bitten way more often by firmware
> leaving registers in some random / unexpected state than by new bits
> introduced by new versions of hardware.
>
> ...same for other registers in your patch that you can just init.
Yes sounds right to me. I will review this and other register writes and
update the code
> (this is true throughout lots of Qualcomm code, but I figure might as
> well start trying to do something about it?)
yep, we can always start somewhere :)
> > + gpi_event_en = readl_relaxed(se->base + SE_GSI_EVENT_EN);
> > +
> > + geni_dma_mode |= GENI_DMA_MODE_EN;
> > + gpi_event_en |= (DMA_RX_EVENT_EN | DMA_TX_EVENT_EN |
> > + GENI_M_EVENT_EN | GENI_S_EVENT_EN);
> > +
> > + writel_relaxed(0, se->base + SE_IRQ_EN);
> > + writel_relaxed(common_geni_s_irq_en, se->base + SE_GENI_S_IRQ_EN);
> > + writel_relaxed(common_geni_m_irq_en, se->base + SE_GENI_M_IRQ_EN);
>
> Last time I touched this bit of code I think folks agreed that it
> would be better to move managing of the interrupt enables out of the
> common code and move them to the various drivers using geni [1]. I
> was hoping that someone from Qualcomm would be able to pick this up.
> Managing them in the wrapper just ends up causing a whole bunch of
> special cases. Any chance you could take that on as part of your
> series?
>
> Presumably if this was mananged in individual drivers you also might
> be able to do less read-modify-write type stuff, too...
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CAD=FV=VWPqswOXJejyXjYT_Yspdu75ELq42cffN87FrpTwPUQg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
If it is okay, I can take this up but after this series. We can handle
the move independently as that is certainly a good thing to do.
> > + writel_relaxed(0xFFFFFFFF, se->base + SE_GENI_M_IRQ_CLEAR);
> > + writel_relaxed(0xFFFFFFFF, se->base + SE_GENI_S_IRQ_CLEAR);
> > + writel_relaxed(0xFFFFFFFF, se->base + SE_DMA_TX_IRQ_CLR);
> > + writel_relaxed(0xFFFFFFFF, se->base + SE_DMA_RX_IRQ_CLR);
>
> This looks mostly like geni_se_irq_clear(). Should they somehow share code?
Mostly seems similar, let me move over that and verify
> > diff --git a/include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h b/include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h
> > index cb4e40908f9f..12003a6cb133 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > enum geni_se_xfer_mode {
> > GENI_SE_INVALID,
> > GENI_SE_FIFO,
> > + GENI_GPI_DMA,
>
> Add a comment like "Also known as GSI" here to help people figure out
> what's going on when they're trying to parse the manual or #defines
> like "SE_GSI_EVENT_EN"
Sure will add GSI.
> > @@ -123,6 +124,9 @@ struct geni_se {
> > #define CLK_DIV_MSK GENMASK(15, 4)
> > #define CLK_DIV_SHFT 4
> >
> > +/* GENI_IF_DISABLE_RO fields */
> > +#define FIFO_IF_DISABLE (BIT(0))
>
> Maybe this define belonged in patch #1? It doesn't seem related to this patch?
Yes the bit defines should go with the register.
--
~Vinod
