On 13/02/2020 03:15, Weiyi Lu wrote:

On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 10:23 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

On 12/02/2020 03:55, Weiyi Lu wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 18:49 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:

quoted

On 20/12/2019 04:45, Weiyi Lu wrote:

quoted

Both MT8183 & MT6765 have more control steps of bus protection
than previous project. And there add more bus protection registers
reside at infracfg & smi-common. Also add new APIs for multiple
step bus protection control with more customized arguments.
And then use bp_table for bus protection of all compatibles,
instead of mixing bus_prot_mask and bus_prot_reg_update.

Signed-off-by: Weiyi Lu <redacted>
---
 drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile         |   2 +-
 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c     | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 drivers/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h     |  67 +++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile b/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile
index b017330..b442be9 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
 obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_CMDQ) += mtk-cmdq-helper.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_INFRACFG) += mtk-infracfg.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_INFRACFG) += mtk-infracfg.o mtk-scpsys-ext.o

It seems that we would need another patch which get's rid of the mtk-infracfg
first and then add stuff like the possibility to have different steps.

Actually I have a PATCH 05/11 to remove the mtk-infracfg.
In this patch, I have some changes, like calling
mtk_scpsys_ext_set_bus_protection(...) instead of
mtk_infracfg_set_bus_protection(...) in scpsys_bus_protect_enable(...)
and replacing bus_prot_mask by bp_table.
I thought I should introduce the new method first and remove useless one
later. What do you think?

Yes, but first patch would be a step to get rid of mtk-infracfg and a second
patch add bp_table and the like.

OK, I'll split into such sequence.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_PMIC_WRAP) += mtk-pmic-wrap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_SCPSYS) += mtk-scpsys.o

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df402ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c

I'm not quite sure why we should put this into a new file. I suppose the
rational behind it is the fact that we access other blocks through regmap.

Yes, those operation are accross infracfg and smi-common so we put these
into new files.

Are you exepct other drivers to use this functions? If not I will have to think
again, but I don't see any reason to put it into a new file.

I thought no other driver would use these functions unless there will
have drivers want to take over the bus protection process by themselves.

Do you prefer just putting these functions into mtk-scpsys.c?

Yes I'd prefer that.

Regards,
Matthias

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel