Hi, Matthias
On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 15:41 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>
> 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
>
Good idea. I will fix it in the next version.
Thanks
> > devapc_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0);
> > if (!devapc_irq)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
