On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 23:19:00 -0600 Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.anders...@linaro.org> wrote: > > +static int hwlocks_inuse_show(struct seq_file *seqf, void *unused) > > +{ > > + struct sunxi_hwspinlock_data *priv = seqf->private; > > + int inuse; > > + > > + /* getting the status of only the main 32 spinlocks is supported */ > > + inuse = hweight32(readl(priv->io_base + SPINLOCK_STATUS_REG)); > > So this returns how many of the locks are taken? How is that useful?
It is a way to see if locks were taken from linux or the arisc core without touching the actual hwspinlock abi or the locks. So it is a nice way to debug hwspinlocks, hence it is part of debugfs. > > + seq_printf(seqf, "%d\n", inuse); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > +DEFINE_SHOW_ATTRIBUTE(hwlocks_inuse); > > + > > +static void sunxi_hwspinlock_debugfs_init(struct sunxi_hwspinlock_data > > *priv) > > +{ > > + char name[32]; > > + > > + scnprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s", DRIVER_NAME); > > Why not just pass DRIVER_NAME directly to debugfs_create_dir()? Uuuh, you're right, that wasn't very clever. I think I changed the name creation to something simpler and and just missed most obvious one. > > +static int sunxi_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct device_node *node = pdev->dev.of_node; > > I don't see a need for this, or the check to fail if it's NULL. Please > remove it. Yeah, will remove it. > > + priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!priv) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + priv->io_base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res); > > Please use devm_platform_ioremap_resource() instead. Hmm, so there is a platform version of it, too. Will change it. > > + priv->reset = devm_reset_control_get_optional(&pdev->dev, "ahb"); > > + if (IS_ERR(priv->reset)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(priv->reset); > > + if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER) > > + return err; > > + > > + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "no optional reset control available > > (%d)\n", err); > > In the even that no "ahb" reset is specified priv->reset is NULL, as > such if you get here there's something wrong - so it's better to fail > here. > > And you can use the convenient dev_err_probe() function to deal with the > EPROBE_DEFER. > > > + priv->reset = NULL; > > + } > > + > > + if (priv->reset) { > > It's perfectly fine to call reset_control_deassert(NULL); so you can > omit this check. Also will update these. > > + /* bit 28 and 29 hold the amount of spinlock banks */ > > + num_banks = (readl(priv->io_base + SPINLOCK_SYSSTATUS_REG) >> 28) & > > 0x03; > > + switch (num_banks) { > > + case 1 ... 4: > > But the comment above says...and num_banks was & 0x3, so how can it be ...4? > > > + /* > > + * 32, 64, 128 and 256 spinlocks are supported by the hardware > > implementation, > > + * though most only support 32 spinlocks > > + */ > > + priv->nlocks = 1 << (4 + num_banks); > > + break; > > + default: > > Given the mask above I believe this would only happen if bits 28 and 29 > are both 0... > > Regardless I think that this would be better written as a > > if (num_banks == invalid) { > ... > goto fail; > } > > priv->nlocks = ...; This one is a really odd one I noticed right after I submitted the patch. I added the & 0x03 after reading the datasheets again. But I think the datasheets are not fully correct here. The datasheets say, 0-4 represent 0, 32, 64, 128 and 256 locks and at the same time say, bits 28/29 are used for this and bits 30/31 are reserved. But you can't represent 5 values with 2 bits. So I'm pretty sure these reserved bits are also used for it, at least bit 30. I will change this to something which is more clear. It's weird, the H3, H5 and H6 datasheet state exactly the same issue. > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unsupported hwspinlock setup (%d)\n", > > num_banks); > > + err = -EINVAL; > > + goto fail; > > + } > > + > > + /* > > + * the Allwinner hwspinlock device uses 32bit registers for > > representing every single > > + * spinlock, which is a real waste of space > > + */ > > Might be a waste, but having them be the natural write size in hardware > makes sense. I'm however not sure what this comment has to do with the > following allocation. > > > + priv->bank = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, priv->nlocks * sizeof(*hwlock) + > > sizeof(*priv->bank), > > Consider using struct_size() here. > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!priv->bank) { > > + err = -ENOMEM; > > + goto fail; > > If you do this allocation before you start the clock and deassert the > reset you can just return -ENOMEM here, instead of the goto. > > > + } > > + > > + for (i = 0, hwlock = &priv->bank->lock[0]; i < priv->nlocks; ++i, > > ++hwlock) { > > + hwlock->priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct > > sunxi_hwspinlock), > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > hwpriv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*hwpriv), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!hwpriv) > return -ENOMEM; > > hwpriv->io_base = ...; > priv->bank->lock[i].priv = hwpriv; > > You're right, I will update this. > > + if (!hwlock->priv) { > > + err = -ENOMEM; > > + goto fail; > > + } > > + > > + hwpriv = hwlock->priv; > > + hwpriv->io_base = priv->io_base + SPINLOCK_LOCK_REGN + > > sizeof(u32) * i; > > + } > > + > > + err = hwspin_lock_register(priv->bank, &pdev->dev, > > &sunxi_hwspinlock_ops, > > SPINLOCK_BASE_ID, > > + priv->nlocks); > > + if (err) { > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to register hwspinlocks (%d)\n", > > err); > > + goto fail; > > + } > > + > > + sunxi_hwspinlock_debugfs_init(priv); > > + > > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "SUNXI hardware spinlock driver enabled (%d > > locks)\n", > > priv->nlocks); + > > + return 0; > > + > > +fail: > > + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->ahb_clock); > > + > > +reset_fail: > > + if (priv->reset) > > + reset_control_assert(priv->reset); > > + > > + return err; > > +} > > + > > +static int sunxi_hwspinlock_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + struct sunxi_hwspinlock_data *priv = platform_get_drvdata(pdev); > > + int err; > > + > > + debugfs_remove_recursive(priv->debugfs); > > + > > + err = hwspin_lock_unregister(priv->bank); > > + if (err) { > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unregister device failed (%d)\n", err); > > + return err; > > + } > > + > > + if (priv->reset) > > + reset_control_assert(priv->reset); > > + > > + clk_disable_unprepare(priv->ahb_clock); > > By using devm_add_action_or_reset() to set up an "assert and unprepare"- > function you can use devm_hwspin_lock_register(), you can drop the > remove function and you can clean up your sunxi_hwspinlock_data (e.g. > you no longer need a pointer to priv->bank). I'm not very used to these devm_* functions yet, but will try to use these. > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static const struct of_device_id sunxi_hwspinlock_ids[] = { > > + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-hwspinlock", }, > > + { .compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-hwspinlock", }, > > + {}, > > +}; > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, sunxi_hwspinlock_ids); > > + > > +static struct platform_driver sunxi_hwspinlock_driver = { > > + .probe = sunxi_hwspinlock_probe, > > + .remove = sunxi_hwspinlock_remove, > > + .driver = { > > + .name = DRIVER_NAME, > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(sunxi_hwspinlock_ids), > > Please avoid of_match_ptr, as this will cause warnings about unused > variables when COMPILE_TEST without OF. So did you mean to leave it out completely? Thanks for looking through this, this really helps a lot. :-) greetings, Wilken > Regards, > Bjorn > > > + }, > > +}; > > + > > +static int __init sunxi_hwspinlock_init(void) > > +{ > > + return platform_driver_register(&sunxi_hwspinlock_driver); > > +} > > +postcore_initcall(sunxi_hwspinlock_init); > > + > > +static void __exit sunxi_hwspinlock_exit(void) > > +{ > > + platform_driver_unregister(&sunxi_hwspinlock_driver); > > +} > > +module_exit(sunxi_hwspinlock_exit); > > + > > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("SUNXI hardware spinlock driver"); > > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Wilken Gottwalt <wilken.gottw...@posteo.net>"); > > -- > > 2.29.2 > >