Re: [PATCH V4 5/8] soc: mediatek: pwrap: add pwrap for mt6797 SoCs

On 05/04/2018 05:04 AM, Sean Wang wrote:

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 14:20 +0800, Argus Lin wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 12:01 +0800, Sean Wang wrote:

quoted

 };

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -1503,11 +1581,13 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (IS_ERR(wrp->base))
 		return PTR_ERR(wrp->base);
 
-	wrp->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(wrp->dev, "pwrap");
-	if (IS_ERR(wrp->rstc)) {
-		ret = PTR_ERR(wrp->rstc);
-		dev_dbg(wrp->dev, "cannot get pwrap reset: %d\n", ret);
-		return ret;
+	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_RESET)) {
+		wrp->rstc = devm_reset_control_get(wrp->dev, "pwrap");

there should be a reset bit present for pwrap on infrasys.

the specific condition can be dropped when the reset cell is exported from infrasys and then the device has a reference to it.

hmm, I think it need to keep here.
because after pwrap initialized, it can't be reset alone.
It needs to reset PMIC simultaneously, too.

Reset a pair, either a master or its slave, all had been a part of
pwrap_init.

The reset controller provided here is just to reset pwrap device.
And for its slave reset, it should be done by pwrap_reset_spislave. 

So for MT6397, it should be able to fall into the same procedure.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+		if (IS_ERR(wrp->rstc)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(wrp->rstc);
+			dev_dbg(wrp->dev, "cannot get pwrap reset: %d\n", ret);
+			return ret;
+		}
 	}
 
 	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_BRIDGE)) {

@@ -1549,9 +1629,17 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (ret)
 		goto err_out1;
 
-	/* Enable internal dynamic clock */
-	pwrap_writel(wrp, 1, PWRAP_DCM_EN);
-	pwrap_writel(wrp, 0, PWRAP_DCM_DBC_PRD);
+	/*
+	 * add dcm capability check
+	 */
+	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_DCM)) {

the specific condition can be dropped since so far all devices the driver can support are owning PWRAP_CAP_DCM

We did not support DCM for future chips.
MT6797 is the last one.
This why I want to add judgement here.

The series is only for MT6797 pwrap, so it's fine with only adding these
things the SoC actually relies on. 

PWRAP_CAP_DCM should not be added until a new SoC without dcm is really
introduced.

I agree (and I think I said this already in a previous review).

Regards,
Matthias

quoted

quoted

quoted

+		if (wrp->master->type == PWRAP_MT6797)
+			pwrap_writel(wrp, 3, PWRAP_DCM_EN);

the setup for MT6797 can be moved into .init_soc_specific callback ?

I think put it here is more generally.

quoted

quoted

+		else
+			pwrap_writel(wrp, 1, PWRAP_DCM_EN);
+
+		pwrap_writel(wrp, 0, PWRAP_DCM_DBC_PRD);
+	}
 
 	/*
 	 * The PMIC could already be initialized by the bootloader.

@@ -1580,6 +1668,12 @@ static int pwrap_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->wdt_src, PWRAP_WDT_SRC_EN);
 	pwrap_writel(wrp, 0x1, PWRAP_TIMER_EN);
 	pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int_en_all, PWRAP_INT_EN);
+	/*
+	 * We add INT1 interrupt to handle starvation and request exception
+	 * If we support it, we should enable them here.
+	 */
+	if (HAS_CAP(wrp->master->caps, PWRAP_CAP_INT1_EN))
+		pwrap_writel(wrp, wrp->master->int1_en_all, PWRAP_INT1_EN);
 

if there is no explicitly enabling on INT1, then ISR handling for INT1 is also unnecessary

It's ok for me.

quoted

quoted

 	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
 	ret = devm_request_irq(wrp->dev, irq, pwrap_interrupt,