Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] mmc: sdhci-msm: Define new Register address map

Hi Vijay,
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:30 AM Vijay Viswanath [off-list ref]
wrote:

From: Sayali Lokhande <redacted>

For SDCC version 5.0.0, MCI registers are removed from SDCC
interface and some registers are moved to HC.
Define a new data structure where we can statically define
the address offsets for the registers in different SDCC versions.

Signed-off-by: Sayali Lokhande <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Vijay Viswanath <redacted>
---
  drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 89

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)

+struct sdhci_msm_offset {
+       u32 core_hc_mode;
+       u32 core_mci_data_cnt;
+       u32 core_mci_status;
+       u32 core_mci_fifo_cnt;
+       u32 core_mci_version;
+       u32 core_generics;
+       u32 core_testbus_config;
+       u32 core_testbus_sel2_bit;
+       u32 core_testbus_ena;
+       u32 core_testbus_sel2;
+       u32 core_pwrctl_status;
+       u32 core_pwrctl_mask;
+       u32 core_pwrctl_clear;
+       u32 core_pwrctl_ctl;
+       u32 core_sdcc_debug_reg;
+       u32 core_dll_config;
+       u32 core_dll_status;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec_func2;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec_capabilities0;
+       u32 core_ddr_200_cfg;
+       u32 core_vendor_spec3;
+       u32 core_dll_config_2;
+       u32 core_ddr_config;
+       u32 core_ddr_config_2;
+};
+
+static const struct sdhci_msm_offset sdhci_msm_v5_offset = {
+       .core_mci_data_cnt = 0x35c,
+       .core_mci_status = 0x324,
+       .core_mci_fifo_cnt = 0x308,
+       .core_mci_version = 0x318,
+       .core_generics = 0x320,
+       .core_testbus_config = 0x32c,
+       .core_testbus_sel2_bit = 3,
+       .core_testbus_ena = (1 << 31),
+       .core_testbus_sel2 = (1 << 3),
+       .core_pwrctl_status = 0x240,
+       .core_pwrctl_mask = 0x244,
+       .core_pwrctl_clear = 0x248,
+       .core_pwrctl_ctl = 0x24c,
+       .core_sdcc_debug_reg = 0x358,
+       .core_dll_config = 0x200,
+       .core_dll_status = 0x208,
+       .core_vendor_spec = 0x20c,
+       .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0 = 0x214,
+       .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1 = 0x218,
+       .core_vendor_spec_func2 = 0x210,
+       .core_vendor_spec_capabilities0 = 0x21c,
+       .core_ddr_200_cfg = 0x224,
+       .core_vendor_spec3 = 0x250,
+       .core_dll_config_2 = 0x254,
+       .core_ddr_config = 0x258,
+       .core_ddr_config_2 = 0x25c,
+};
+
+static const struct sdhci_msm_offset sdhci_msm_mci_offset = {
+       .core_hc_mode = 0x78,
+       .core_mci_data_cnt = 0x30,
+       .core_mci_status = 0x34,
+       .core_mci_fifo_cnt = 0x44,
+       .core_mci_version = 0x050,
+       .core_generics = 0x70,
+       .core_testbus_config = 0x0CC,
+       .core_testbus_sel2_bit = 4,
+       .core_testbus_ena = (1 << 3),
+       .core_testbus_sel2 = (1 << 4),
+       .core_pwrctl_status = 0xDC,
+       .core_pwrctl_mask = 0xE0,
+       .core_pwrctl_clear = 0xE4,
+       .core_pwrctl_ctl = 0xE8,
+       .core_sdcc_debug_reg = 0x124,
+       .core_dll_config = 0x100,
+       .core_dll_status = 0x108,
+       .core_vendor_spec = 0x10C,
+       .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr0 = 0x114,
+       .core_vendor_spec_adma_err_addr1 = 0x118,
+       .core_vendor_spec_func2 = 0x110,
+       .core_vendor_spec_capabilities0 = 0x11C,
+       .core_ddr_200_cfg = 0x184,
+       .core_vendor_spec3 = 0x1B0,
+       .core_dll_config_2 = 0x1B4,
+       .core_ddr_config = 0x1B8,
+       .core_ddr_config_2 = 0x1BC,
+};
+

I notice a lot of these are never used in the subsequent patches of this
series. I guess more register definitions are always better than fewer,
it's just a shame that they take up space now. Did you just add everything
that was different between v4 and v5, or how did you come up with this set?

Also, I think lowercase hex letters are preferred.

I verified that the v5 register offsets look good, at least for the
registers I have documentation for.

-Evan