22.12.2021 07:35, Sameer Pujar пишет:
> HDA regression is recently reported on Tegra194 based platforms.
> This happens because "hda2codec_2x" reset does not really exist
> in Tegra194 and it causes probe failure. All the HDA based audio
> tests fail at the moment. This underlying issue is exposed by
> commit c045ceb5a145 ("reset: tegra-bpmp: Handle errors in BPMP
> response") which now checks return code of BPMP command response.
> Fix this issue by skipping unavailable reset on Tegra194.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sameer Pujar <spujar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Depends-on: 87f0e46e7559 ("ALSA: hda/tegra: Reset hardware")
Is "Depends-on" a valid tag? I can't find it in Documentation/.
> ---
> sound/pci/hda/hda_tegra.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/hda_tegra.c b/sound/pci/hda/hda_tegra.c
> index ea700395..7c3df54 100644
> --- a/sound/pci/hda/hda_tegra.c
> +++ b/sound/pci/hda/hda_tegra.c
> @@ -68,14 +68,20 @@
> */
> #define TEGRA194_NUM_SDO_LINES 4
>
> +struct hda_tegra_soc {
> + bool has_hda2codec_2x_reset;
> +};
> +
> struct hda_tegra {
> struct azx chip;
> struct device *dev;
> - struct reset_control *reset;
> + struct reset_control_bulk_data resets[3];
> struct clk_bulk_data clocks[3];
> + unsigned int nresets;
> unsigned int nclocks;
> void __iomem *regs;
> struct work_struct probe_work;
> + const struct hda_tegra_soc *data;
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> @@ -170,7 +176,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused hda_tegra_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> int rc;
>
> if (!chip->running) {
> - rc = reset_control_assert(hda->reset);
> + rc = reset_control_bulk_assert(hda->nresets, hda->resets);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
> }
> @@ -187,7 +193,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused hda_tegra_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> } else {
> usleep_range(10, 100);
>
> - rc = reset_control_deassert(hda->reset);
> + rc = reset_control_bulk_deassert(hda->nresets, hda->resets);
> if (rc)
> return rc;
> }
> @@ -427,9 +433,17 @@ static int hda_tegra_create(struct snd_card *card,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static const struct hda_tegra_soc tegra30_data = {
> + .has_hda2codec_2x_reset = true,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct hda_tegra_soc tegra194_data = {
> + .has_hda2codec_2x_reset = false,
> +};
> +
> static const struct of_device_id hda_tegra_match[] = {
> - { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-hda" },
> - { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-hda" },
> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-hda", .data = &tegra30_data },
> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-hda", .data = &tegra194_data },
> {},
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, hda_tegra_match);
> @@ -449,6 +463,10 @@ static int hda_tegra_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> hda->dev = &pdev->dev;
> chip = &hda->chip;
>
> + hda->data = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev);
> + if (!hda->data)
> + return -EINVAL;
hda->data can't ever be NULL because all hda_tegra_match[] compatibles
above have .data assigned. Technically this check is redundant.
Thierry suggested previously to name it "hda->soc", like we usually do
it in other drivers.
> err = snd_card_new(&pdev->dev, SNDRV_DEFAULT_IDX1, SNDRV_DEFAULT_STR1,
> THIS_MODULE, 0, &card);
> if (err < 0) {
> @@ -456,11 +474,20 @@ static int hda_tegra_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> return err;
> }
>
> - hda->reset = devm_reset_control_array_get_exclusive(&pdev->dev);
> - if (IS_ERR(hda->reset)) {
> - err = PTR_ERR(hda->reset);
> + hda->resets[hda->nresets++].id = "hda";
> + hda->resets[hda->nresets++].id = "hda2hdmi";
> + /*
> + * "hda2codec_2x" reset is not present on Tegra194. Though DT would
> + * be updated to reflect this, but to have backward compatibility
> + * below is necessary.
> + */
> + if (hda->data->has_hda2codec_2x_reset)
> + hda->resets[hda->nresets++].id = "hda2codec_2x";
> +
> + err = devm_reset_control_bulk_get_exclusive(&pdev->dev, hda->nresets,
> + hda->resets);
> + if (err)
> goto out_free;
> - }
>
> hda->clocks[hda->nclocks++].id = "hda";
> hda->clocks[hda->nclocks++].id = "hda2hdmi";
>
Not sure whether the above nits worth making v4. I'll leave it up to you
and other reviewers to decide.
Overall this patch looks good to me, thank you.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
