[PATCH v2 2/6] soc: mediatek: devapc: move 'vio_idx_num' info to DT

[Nina Wu]

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.Wu at 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.Wu at 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;
> >