On 01/04/2021 08:38, Nina Wu wrote:
> From: Nina Wu <nina-cm...@mediatek.com>
>
> For new ICs, there are multiple devapc HWs for different subsys.
> The number of devices controlled by each devapc (i.e. 'vio_idx_num'
> in the code) varies.
> We move this info from compatible data to DT so that we do not need
> to add n compatible for a certain IC which has n devapc HWs with
> different 'vio_idx_num', respectively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nina Wu <nina-cm...@mediatek.com>
> ---
> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> index f1cea04..a0f6fbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-devapc.c
> @@ -32,9 +32,6 @@ struct mtk_devapc_vio_dbgs {
> };
>
> struct mtk_devapc_data {
> - /* numbers of violation index */
> - u32 vio_idx_num;
> -
> /* reg offset */
> u32 vio_mask_offset;
> u32 vio_sta_offset;
> @@ -49,6 +46,7 @@ struct mtk_devapc_data {
> struct mtk_devapc_context {
> struct device *dev;
> void __iomem *infra_base;
> + u32 vio_idx_num;
We should try to stay backwards compatible (newer kernel with older DTS). I
think we don't need to move vio_idx_num to mtk_devapc_context. Just don't
declare it in the per SoC match data. More details see below...
> struct clk *infra_clk;
> const struct mtk_devapc_data *data;
> };
> @@ -60,10 +58,10 @@ static void clear_vio_status(struct mtk_devapc_context
> *ctx)
>
> reg = ctx->infra_base + ctx->data->vio_sta_offset;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> + for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
> writel(GENMASK(31, 0), reg + 4 * i);
>
> - writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1, 0),
> + writel(GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1), 0),
> reg + 4 * i);
> }
>
> @@ -80,15 +78,15 @@ static void mask_module_irq(struct mtk_devapc_context
> *ctx, bool mask)
> else
> val = 0;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1; i++)
> + for (i = 0; i < VIO_MOD_TO_REG_IND(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1); i++)
> writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
>
> val = readl(reg + 4 * i);
> if (mask)
> - val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> + val |= GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
> 0);
> else
> - val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->data->vio_idx_num) - 1,
> + val &= ~GENMASK(VIO_MOD_TO_REG_OFF(ctx->vio_idx_num - 1),
> 0);
>
> writel(val, reg + 4 * i);
> @@ -216,7 +214,6 @@ static void stop_devapc(struct mtk_devapc_context *ctx)
> }
>
> static const struct mtk_devapc_data devapc_mt6779 = {
> - .vio_idx_num = 511,
> .vio_mask_offset = 0x0,
> .vio_sta_offset = 0x400,
> .vio_dbg0_offset = 0x900,
> @@ -256,6 +253,9 @@ static int mtk_devapc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (!ctx->infra_base)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "vio_idx_num", &ctx->vio_idx_num))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
...only read the property if vio_idx_num == 0.
What do you think?
Regards,
Matthias
> devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> if (!devapc_irq)
> return -EINVAL;
>
