Il 05/03/25 17:12, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) ha scritto:
On Tue, 2025-03-04 at 10:41 +0100, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
you have verified the sender or the content.
Il 18/02/25 06:41, Jason-JH Lin ha scritto:
To support hardware without subsys IDs on new SoCs, add a
programming
flow that checks whether the subsys ID is valid. If the subsys ID
is
invalid, the flow will call 2 alternative CMDQ APIs:
cmdq_pkt_assign() and cmdq_pkt_write_s_value() to achieve the same
functionality.
Signed-off-by: Jason-JH Lin <jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mmsys.c | 14 +++++++++++---
drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c | 11 +++++++++--
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mmsys.c
b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mmsys.c
index bb4639ca0b8c..ce949b863b05 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mmsys.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mmsys.c
@@ -167,9 +167,17 @@ static void mtk_mmsys_update_bits(struct
mtk_mmsys *mmsys, u32 offset, u32 mask,
u32 tmp;
if (mmsys->cmdq_base.size && cmdq_pkt) {
- ret = cmdq_pkt_write_mask(cmdq_pkt, mmsys-
cmdq_base.subsys,
- mmsys->cmdq_base.offset +
offset, val,
- mask);
+ offset += mmsys->cmdq_base.offset;
+ if (mmsys->cmdq_base.subsys != CMDQ_SUBSYS_INVALID) {
You're still anyway passing the subsys to cmdq_pkt_write_mask(),
right?!
Why don't you just handle this in cmdq_pkt_write_mask() then? ;-)
I can see this pattern being repeated over and over in both
drm/mediatek and MDP3
drivers, and it's not necessary to duplicate this many times when you
can write it
just once.
Would've also been faster for you to implement... :-D
I think did it in the series V1:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20241121042602.32730-5-jason-jh.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
Because it'll need to passing the base_pa and that will need to change
the interface for original APIs.
And CK think that's not a necessary to change the APIs. It can be done
by cmdq_pkt_assign() + cmdq_pkt_write_s_mask_value() in the client
drivers. Then you can see this pattern in everywhere. :-)
Using likely(x) and unlikely(x) should be avoided, really, unless it's something
that is really really really really ... really ... rea.... likely or unlikely :-)
Btw. Changing the APIs is a bit difficult, but I disagree with CK about not
"inventing" a new API for the unsupported-subsys flow.
It's true, it is not *strictly* needed to add a function, but it's good for any
kind of future maintainability - as I explained, it's easier then to fix a problem
if there's one.... and well, I can see that you agree with me, because effectively
you did it the first time :-)
CK mentioned using cmdq_pkt_write() *or* cmdq_pkt_assignwrite/cmdq_pkt_write_pa()
(however you wanna call it, it's fine for me), in drivers that know that there
always is or there always isn't a subsys ID: that's a good suggestion, as this can
be eventually done with assigning a function pointer, so, no conditionals at each
operation.
My point of view, finally, is:
- This is just another way of doing cmdq_pkt_write()
- This, at the end of the day, does exactly what cmdq_pkt_write() is doing,
except it's doing it with two instructions instead of one;
- The same thing can be done in two different ways (depending on SoC)
- This same thing should have a function that does it.
A function that does it can be
int cmdq_pkt_write_pa(struct cmdq_pkt *pkt, u8 subsys /*unused*/, u32 pa_base, u16
offset, u32 value)
{
err = cmdq_pkt_assign(pkt, 0, CMDQ_ADDR_HIGH(pa_base));
if (err < 0)
return err;
return cmdq_pkt_write_s_value( .... etc)
}
int cmdq_pkt_write() <--- unchanged, scheduled for removal after all drivers migrated
int cmdq_pkt_write_subsys(struct cmdq_pkt *pkt, u8 subsys, u32 pa_base /*unused*/,
u16 offset, u32 value)
{
/* This function will get the contents of cmdq_pkt_write once removed,
but, in the meanwhile, to avoid duplication we just call that: */
return cmdq_pkt_write(pkt, subsys, offset, value);
}
- Are we adding one more function parameter? Yes
- Is this impacting performance overall? Not really
After all, we're living in an ARMv8 (actually, ARMv9 for new ones) world, so
one more function param won't hurt anyone.
I think that's the best of both worlds, and makes everyone happy.
Are you happy with that? :-)
Cheers,
Angelo
