Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 07:52:53AM +0100, leroy christophe wrote: Le 06/03/2015 12:44, Mark Brown a écrit : It's legacy, all that code is really old. Modern code is written in as architecture and firmware neutral a fashion as possible to make things more consistent and maintainable. This patch is only a small bug fix. That driver already contains calls to of_iomap() and other related of_ functions. Is it worth rewriting the driver for just a small bug fix ? I don't think you need to fix other usages but I'd rather not introduce new usages of legacy APIs that just need to be fixed up. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
Le 06/03/2015 12:44, Mark Brown a écrit : On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:00:39AM +0100, leroy christophe wrote: Le 03/03/2015 19:44, Mark Brown a écrit : Why are we using of_iomap() rather than a generic I/O mapping function here? because all drivers for powerpc seems to be using of_iomap(), as on powerpc the HW is described by the bootloader in a OF device tree. Today, of_iomap() is at least used in FSL SPI, FSL UART, SPI mpc52xx, UART mpc52xx, i2c-mpc, i2c-cpm, freescale ethernet drivers, etc Is it not correct ? It's legacy, all that code is really old. Modern code is written in as architecture and firmware neutral a fashion as possible to make things more consistent and maintainable. This patch is only a small bug fix. That driver already contains calls to of_iomap() and other related of_ functions. Is it worth rewriting the driver for just a small bug fix ? Christophe ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:00:39AM +0100, leroy christophe wrote: Le 03/03/2015 19:44, Mark Brown a écrit : Why are we using of_iomap() rather than a generic I/O mapping function here? because all drivers for powerpc seems to be using of_iomap(), as on powerpc the HW is described by the bootloader in a OF device tree. Today, of_iomap() is at least used in FSL SPI, FSL UART, SPI mpc52xx, UART mpc52xx, i2c-mpc, i2c-cpm, freescale ethernet drivers, etc Is it not correct ? It's legacy, all that code is really old. Modern code is written in as architecture and firmware neutral a fashion as possible to make things more consistent and maintainable. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
Le 03/03/2015 19:44, Mark Brown a écrit : On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:11:42PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: On CPM2, the SPI parameter RAM is dynamically allocated in the dualport RAM whereas in CPM1, it is statically allocated to a default address with capability to relocate it somewhere else via the use of CPM micropatch. The address of the parameter RAM is given by the boot loader and expected to be mapped via of_iomap() Why are we using of_iomap() rather than a generic I/O mapping function here? Euh ... because all drivers for powerpc seems to be using of_iomap(), as on powerpc the HW is described by the bootloader in a OF device tree. Today, of_iomap() is at least used in FSL SPI, FSL UART, SPI mpc52xx, UART mpc52xx, i2c-mpc, i2c-cpm, freescale ethernet drivers, etc Is it not correct ? ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:11:42PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: On CPM2, the SPI parameter RAM is dynamically allocated in the dualport RAM whereas in CPM1, it is statically allocated to a default address with capability to relocate it somewhere else via the use of CPM micropatch. The address of the parameter RAM is given by the boot loader and expected to be mapped via of_iomap() Why are we using of_iomap() rather than a generic I/O mapping function here? signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
[PATCH] spi: fsl-spi: use of_iomap() to map parameter ram on CPM1
On CPM2, the SPI parameter RAM is dynamically allocated in the dualport RAM
whereas in CPM1, it is statically allocated to a default address with
capability to relocate it somewhere else via the use of CPM micropatch.
The address of the parameter RAM is given by the boot loader and expected
to be mapped via of_iomap()
In the current implementation, in function fsl_spi_cpm_get_pram() there is
a confusion between the SPI_BASE register and the base of the SPI
parameter RAM. Fortunatly, it is working properly with MPC866 and MPC885
because they do set SPI_BASE, but on MPC860 and other old MPC8xx that doesn't
set SPI_BASE, pram_ofs is not properly set.
Also, the parameter RAM is not properly mapped with of_iomap() as it should
but still gets accessible by chance through the full RAM which is mapped
from somewhere else.
This patch applies to the SPI driver the same principle as for the CPM UART:
when the CPM is of type CPM1, we simply do an of_iomap() of the area provided
via the device tree.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy christophe.le...@c-s.fr
---
drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c | 32 +++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c b/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c
index e85ab1c..97c28d7 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-fsl-cpm.c
@@ -264,17 +264,6 @@ static unsigned long fsl_spi_cpm_get_pram(struct
mpc8xxx_spi *mspi)
if (mspi-flags SPI_CPM2) {
pram_ofs = cpm_muram_alloc(SPI_PRAM_SIZE, 64);
out_be16(spi_base, pram_ofs);
- } else {
- struct spi_pram __iomem *pram = spi_base;
- u16 rpbase = in_be16(pram-rpbase);
-
- /* Microcode relocation patch applied? */
- if (rpbase) {
- pram_ofs = rpbase;
- } else {
- pram_ofs = cpm_muram_alloc(SPI_PRAM_SIZE, 64);
- out_be16(spi_base, pram_ofs);
- }
}
iounmap(spi_base);
@@ -287,7 +276,6 @@ int fsl_spi_cpm_init(struct mpc8xxx_spi *mspi)
struct device_node *np = dev-of_node;
const u32 *iprop;
int size;
- unsigned long pram_ofs;
unsigned long bds_ofs;
if (!(mspi-flags SPI_CPM_MODE))
@@ -314,8 +302,17 @@ int fsl_spi_cpm_init(struct mpc8xxx_spi *mspi)
}
}
- pram_ofs = fsl_spi_cpm_get_pram(mspi);
- if (IS_ERR_VALUE(pram_ofs)) {
+ if (mspi-flags SPI_CPM1) {
+ mspi-pram = of_iomap(np, 1);
+ } else {
+ unsigned long pram_ofs = fsl_spi_cpm_get_pram(mspi);
+
+ if (IS_ERR_VALUE(pram_ofs))
+ mspi-pram = NULL;
+ else
+ mspi-pram = cpm_muram_addr(pram_ofs);
+ }
+ if (mspi-pram == NULL) {
dev_err(dev, can't allocate spi parameter ram\n);
goto err_pram;
}
@@ -341,8 +338,6 @@ int fsl_spi_cpm_init(struct mpc8xxx_spi *mspi)
goto err_dummy_rx;
}
- mspi-pram = cpm_muram_addr(pram_ofs);
-
mspi-tx_bd = cpm_muram_addr(bds_ofs);
mspi-rx_bd = cpm_muram_addr(bds_ofs + sizeof(*mspi-tx_bd));
@@ -370,7 +365,10 @@ err_dummy_rx:
err_dummy_tx:
cpm_muram_free(bds_ofs);
err_bds:
- cpm_muram_free(pram_ofs);
+ if (mspi-flags SPI_CPM1)
+ iounmap(mspi-pram);
+ else
+ cpm_muram_free(cpm_muram_offset(mspi-pram));
err_pram:
fsl_spi_free_dummy_rx();
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.1.0
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
