Hi, [ I had to manually rewrap your email which came with long lines, please have a read on Documentation/email-clients.txt ] On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 08:14:04AM -0500, Dan Murphy wrote: > >> The TI SoC reset controller support utilizes the > >> reset controller framework to give device drivers or > >> function drivers a common set of APIs to call to reset > >> a module. > >> > >> The reset-ti is a common interface to the reset framework. > >> The register data is retrieved during initialization > >> of the reset driver through the reset-ti-data > >> file. The array of data is associated with the compatible from the > >> respective DT entry. > >> > >> Once the data is available then this is derefenced within the common > >> interface. > >> > >> The device driver has the ability to assert, deassert or perform a > >> complete reset. > >> > >> This code was derived from previous work by Rajendra Nayak and Afzal Mohammed. > >> The code was changed to adopt to the reset core and abstract away the SoC information. > > you should break your commit log at around 72 characters at most. > > Do you mean 72 characters per line? <sartalics> no, that's too much. The entire commit log </sartalics> Yes, per-line :-) > >> diff --git a/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti-data.h b/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti-data.h > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..4d2a6d5 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti-data.h > >> @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ > >> +/* > >> + * PRCM reset driver for TI SoC's > >> + * > >> + * Copyright 2014 Texas Instruments Inc. > > this is not the TI aproved way for copyright notices. Yeah, > > nit-picking... > > Hmm. Will need to look at other TI files to correct then. /** * file.c - Short Description * * Copyright (C) 2010-2011 Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com * * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> * * GPL text goes here */ > >> + * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> > >> + * > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > >> + */ > >> + > >> +#ifndef _RESET_TI_DATA_H_ > >> +#define _RESET_TI_DATA_H_ > >> + > >> +#include <linux/kernel.h> > >> +#include <linux/reset-controller.h> > >> + > >> +/** > >> + * struct ti_reset_reg_data - Structure of the reset register information > >> + * for a particular SoC. > >> + * @rstctrl_offs: This is the reset control offset value from > >> + * from the parent reset node. > >> + * @rstst_offs: This is the reset status offset value from > >> + * from the parent reset node. > >> + * @rstctrl_bit: This is the reset control bit for the module. > >> + * @rstst_bit: This is the reset status bit for the module. > >> + * > >> + * This structure describes the reset register control and status offsets. > >> + * The bits are also defined for the same. > >> + */ > >> +struct ti_reset_reg_data { > >> + void __iomem *reg_base; > >> + u32 rstctrl_offs; > >> + u32 rstst_offs; > >> + u32 rstctrl_bit; > >> + u32 rstst_bit; > > this structure can be folded into struct ti_reset_data and all of that > > can be initialized during probe. > > I could do that. It will simplify the de-referencing as well. yeah, and it will prevent constant alloc/free of this structure > >> diff --git a/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti.c b/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..349f4fb > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/reset/ti/reset-ti.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,267 @@ > >> +/* > >> + * PRCM reset driver for TI SoC's > >> + * > >> + * Copyright 2014 Texas Instruments Inc. > >> + * > >> + * Author: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx> > > fix copyright notice here too > > > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > >> + */ > >> + > >> +#include <linux/device.h> > >> +#include <linux/err.h> > >> +#include <linux/io.h> > >> +#include <linux/kernel.h> > >> +#include <linux/module.h> > >> +#include <linux/of_address.h> > >> +#include <linux/of_device.h> > >> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> > >> +#include <linux/reset.h> > >> +#include <linux/slab.h> > >> + > >> +#include "reset-ti-data.h" > >> + > >> +#define DRIVER_NAME "prcm_reset_ti" > >> + > >> +static struct ti_reset_data *ti_data; > > NAK, you *really* don't need and don't to have this global here. It only don't _want_ to have, missed the verb > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + > >> + /* node parent */ > >> + parent = of_get_parent(dev_node); > >> + if (!parent) { > >> + pr_err("%s: Cannot find parent reset node\n", __func__); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + /* prcm reset parent */ > >> + reset_parent = of_get_next_parent(parent); > >> + if (!reset_parent) { > >> + pr_err("%s: Cannot find parent reset node\n", __func__); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + /* PRCM Parent */ > >> + reset_parent = of_get_parent(reset_parent); > >> + if (!prcm_parent) { > >> + pr_err("%s: Cannot find parent reset node\n", __func__); > >> + return ret; > >> + } > >> + > >> + reset_data->reg_base = of_iomap(reset_parent, 0); > > please don't. of_iomap() is the stupidest helper in the kernel. Find > > your resource using platform_get_resource() and map it with > > devm_ioremap_resource() since that will properly request_mem_region() > > and correctly map the resource with or without caching. > > Thanks for the information. The reason this is here so that if there are multiple PRCM > modules I can just get the base address for the phandle of interest. yeah, you can also: res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); [...] res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1); [...] or even: res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "my_resource"); [...] res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "my_other_resource"); [...] > >> + struct ti_reset_reg_data *temp_reg_data; > >> + void __iomem *status_reg; > >> + u32 bit_mask = 0; > >> + u32 val = 0; > >> + > >> + temp_reg_data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ti_reset_reg_data), GFP_KERNEL); > > let's think about this for a second: > > > > user asks for a reset, then ->assert() method gets called, which will > > allocate memory, do some crap, free the allocated memory, then you call > > your ->deassert() method which will, allocate memory, do something, free > > memory, then this method is called which will allocate memory, do > > something, free memory. > > > > Note that *all* of your allocations a) are unnecessary and b) will break > > resets from inside IRQ context... > > This made also think that this is not thread safe as this reset calls > can be called from multiple callers so I think a semaphore is order > for this function plus the other calls. right > >> + ti_reset_get_of_data(temp_reg_data, id); > > this means that *every time* a reset is asserted/deasserted/waited on, > > you will parse *ONE MORE TIME* the DTB. Why ? Why don't you parse it > > once during probe() and cache the results ? > > Cache it into what, a list? into your struct ti_reset_data: of_get_property_u32(foo, "bar", &ti_data->bar); following accesses you just need to read ti_data->bar. > I had implemented a list before and received comments do not use a > list. Because you have to iterate through the list every time. And a > list would need to contain some sort of indexing agent which defeats > the purpose of a phandle. Then the DTB and kernel images would have > to be in sync for the indexes. > > If I put it into an array I run into issues with a bounded array and > need to introduce the index anyway. So passing the phandle is futile > which means I have to introduce the indexing from the V1 series again. > > For my information why is parsing the DTB worse then iterating through > a list? Is there a possibility that the DTB will be over written? what are you talking about ?? Look at what how you're parsing your DTB: + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "reg", 0, + &reset_data->rstctrl_offs); + if (ret) + return ret; + + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "reg", 1, + &reset_data->rstst_offs); + if (ret) + return ret; + + ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "control-bit", + &reset_data->rstctrl_bit); + if (ret < 0) + pr_err("%s: No entry in %s for rstst_offs\n", __func__, + dev_node->name); + + ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "status-bit", + &reset_data->rstst_bit); + if (ret < 0) + pr_err("%s: No entry in %s for rstst_offs\n", __func__, + dev_node->name); why can't you do that from probe and cache the results inside struct ti_reset_data ? IOW: probe() { [ ... ] ret = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "reg", 0, &ti_data->rstctrl_offs); [ ... ] ret = of_property_read_u32_index(parent, "reg", 1, &ti_data->rstst_offs); [ ... ] ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "control-bit", &ti_data->rstctrl_bit); [ ... ] ret = of_property_read_u32(dev_node, "status-bit", &ti_data->rstst_bit); [ ... ] return 0; } cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
