Il 11/04/22 09:23, Moudy Ho ha scritto:
In order to allow multiple modules to operate MUTEX hardware through
a common interfrace, a flexible index "mtk_mutex_table_index" needs to
be added to replace original component ID so that like DDP and MDP
can add their own MUTEX table settings independently.
In addition, 4 generic interface "mtk_mutex_set_mod", "mtk_mutex_set_sof",
"mtk_mutex_clear_mod" and "mtk_mutex_clear_sof" have been added, which is
expected to replace the "mtk_mutex_add_comp" and "mtk_mutex_remove_comp"
pair originally dedicated to DDP in the future.
Signed-off-by: Moudy Ho <moudy.ho@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Change-Id: I6a2ab74fccf36248165ce4a6b268d82a1177afc9
---
drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.h | 21 ++++++
2 files changed, 110 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
index aaf8fc1abb43..48a04dce50d5 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
@@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ struct mtk_mutex_data {
const unsigned int *mutex_sof;
const unsigned int mutex_mod_reg;
const unsigned int mutex_sof_reg;
+ const unsigned int *mutex_table_mod;
+ const unsigned int *mutex_table_sof;
const bool no_clk;
};
@@ -445,6 +447,54 @@ void mtk_mutex_add_comp(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_add_comp);
Hello Moudy,
Some critical things, and one cleanup.
First of all, the commit title is very long, and it also contains a typo.
I would go for something like
"soc: mediatek: mutex: Add common interface for modules setting".
Also, please remove your internal "Change-Id" tag, this is meaningless on
upstream, hence not applicable here.
Now for the cleanup: I have an idea to make this a bit shorter (and please
feel free to change function names with something more appropriate, if needed):
static int mtk_mutex_write_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx,
bool clear)
{
+{
+ struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct mtk_mutex_ctx,
+ mutex[mutex->id]);
+ unsigned int reg;
+ unsigned int offset;
+
+ WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex);
+
+ if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 ||
+ idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) {
+ dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported MOD table index : %d", idx);
+ return;
return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ offset = DISP_REG_MUTEX_MOD(mtx->data->mutex_mod_reg,
+ mutex->id);
+
+ reg = readl_relaxed(mtx->regs + offset);
if (clear)
reg &= ~BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx])
else
reg |= BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx])
+ reg |= 1 << mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx];
+ writel_relaxed(reg, mtx->regs + offset);
+}
int mtk_mutex_set_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
{
return mtk_mutex_write_mod(mutex, idx, false);
}
int mtk_mutex_clear_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
{
return mtk_mutex_clear_mod(mutex, idx, true);
}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_set_mod);
+
+void mtk_mutex_set_sof(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
+ enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
+{
+ struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct mtk_mutex_ctx,
+ mutex[mutex->id]);
+ unsigned int sof_id;
+
+ WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex);
+
+ if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 ||
+ idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) {
+ dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported SOF table index : %d", idx);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ sof_id = mtx->data->mutex_table_sof[idx];
... same changes here, except we'd have something like
if (clear)
val = MUTEX_SOF_SINGLE_MODE;
else
val = mtx->data->mutex_sof[sof_id];
writel_relaxed(val, ...etc)
but feel free to give me valid reasons to not use this approach.
In any case, the code looks ok to me.
Regards,
Angelo
