On 9/2/24 12:46, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 06:57:20PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote:
Do prepatory work for the 7712 SoC, which is introduced in a future commit.
Our HW design has changed two register offsets for the 7712, where
previously it was a common value for all Broadcom SOCs with PCIe cores.
Specifically, the two offsets are to the registers HARD_DEBUG and
INTR2_CPU_BASE.
@@ -1499,12 +1502,16 @@ static const int pcie_offsets[] = {
[RGR1_SW_INIT_1] = 0x9210,
[EXT_CFG_INDEX] = 0x9000,
[EXT_CFG_DATA] = 0x9004,
+ [PCIE_HARD_DEBUG] = 0x4204,
+ [PCIE_INTR2_CPU_BASE] = 0x4300,
};
static const int pcie_offsets_bmips_7425[] = {
[RGR1_SW_INIT_1] = 0x8010,
[EXT_CFG_INDEX] = 0x8300,
[EXT_CFG_DATA] = 0x8304,
+ [PCIE_HARD_DEBUG] = 0x4204,
+ [PCIE_INTR2_CPU_BASE] = 0x4300,
};
static const struct pcie_cfg_data generic_cfg = {
@@ -1539,6 +1546,8 @@ static const int pcie_offset_bcm7278[] = {
[RGR1_SW_INIT_1] = 0xc010,
[EXT_CFG_INDEX] = 0x9000,
[EXT_CFG_DATA] = 0x9004,
+ [PCIE_HARD_DEBUG] = 0x4204,
+ [PCIE_INTR2_CPU_BASE] = 0x4300,
};
What's the organization scheme here? We now have:
static const int pcie_offsets[] = { ... };
static const int pcie_offsets_bmips_7425[] = { ... };
static const int pcie_offset_bcm7712[] = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data generic_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm7425_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm7435_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm4908_cfg = { ... };
static const int pcie_offset_bcm7278[] = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm7278_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm2711_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm7216_cfg = { ... };
static const struct pcie_cfg_data bcm7712_cfg = { ... };
So we have pcie_offsets_bmips_7425[] and pcie_offset_bcm7712[] (with
gratuituously different "offset" vs "offsets") which are all together
before the pcie_cfg_data.
Then we have pcie_offset_bcm7278[] (again gratuitously different
"offset") separately, next to bcm7278_cfg.
It would be nice to pick one scheme and stick to it.
Also a seemingly random order of the pcie_cfg_data structs and
.compatible strings.
Also a little confusing to have "bmips_7425" and "bcm7425" associated
with the same chip. I suppose there's historical reason for it, but I
don't think it's helpful in this usage.
All fair points, especially the lack of consistency, thanks for cleaning
that up.
--
Florian
