[PATCH v14 1/6] soc: mediatek: mutex: add common interface to accommodate multiple modules operationg MUTEX

[moudy.ho]

On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 10:27 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 11/04/22 09:23, Moudy Ho ha scritto:
> > In order to allow multiple modules to operate MUTEX hardware
> > through
> > a common interfrace, a flexible index "mtk_mutex_table_index" needs
> > to
> > be added to replace original component ID so that like DDP and MDP
> > can add their own MUTEX table settings independently.
> > 
> > In addition, 4 generic interface "mtk_mutex_set_mod",
> > "mtk_mutex_set_sof",
> > "mtk_mutex_clear_mod" and "mtk_mutex_clear_sof" have been added,
> > which is
> > expected to replace the "mtk_mutex_add_comp" and
> > "mtk_mutex_remove_comp"
> > pair originally dedicated to DDP in the future.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Moudy Ho <moudy.ho at mediatek.com>
> > Change-Id: I6a2ab74fccf36248165ce4a6b268d82a1177afc9
> > ---
> >   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c       | 89
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   include/linux/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.h | 21 ++++++
> >   2 files changed, 110 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> > b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> > index aaf8fc1abb43..48a04dce50d5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c
> > @@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ struct mtk_mutex_data {
> >   	const unsigned int *mutex_sof;
> >   	const unsigned int mutex_mod_reg;
> >   	const unsigned int mutex_sof_reg;
> > +	const unsigned int *mutex_table_mod;
> > +	const unsigned int *mutex_table_sof;
> >   	const bool no_clk;
> >   };
> >   
> > @@ -445,6 +447,54 @@ void mtk_mutex_add_comp(struct mtk_mutex
> > *mutex,
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_add_comp);
> >   
> 
Hi Angelo,

Thanks you for helping to point out the deficiencies.

> Hello Moudy,
> 
> Some critical things, and one cleanup.
> 
> First of all, the commit title is very long, and it also contains a
> typo.
> I would go for something like
> "soc: mediatek: mutex: Add common interface for modules setting".
> 

As you said, this modification will make the description more explicit.

> Also, please remove your internal "Change-Id" tag, this is
> meaningless on
> upstream, hence not applicable here.
> 

Thanks for the correction, I also found this error and resent using the
link below:
Message ID = 20220411074925.25539-2-moudy.ho at mediatek.com/
It will be additionally confirmed when the next version is sent out.

> Now for the cleanup: I have an idea to make this a bit shorter (and
> please
> feel free to change function names with something more appropriate,
> if needed):
> 
Appreciate for the good changes.
As suggested, I'll add return values for error handling and simplify
the set and clear MOD/SOF functions.

Thanks,
Moudy

> static int mtk_mutex_write_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
> 				enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx,
> 				bool clear)
> {
> 
> 
> > +{
> > +	struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct
> > mtk_mutex_ctx,
> > +						 mutex[mutex->id]);
> > +	unsigned int reg;
> > +	unsigned int offset;
> > +
> > +	WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 ||
> > +	    idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) {
> > +		dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported MOD table index : %d",
> > idx);
> > +		return;
> 
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	offset = DISP_REG_MUTEX_MOD(mtx->data->mutex_mod_reg,
> > +				    mutex->id);
> > +
> > +	reg = readl_relaxed(mtx->regs + offset);
> 
> if (clear)
> 	reg &= ~BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx])
> else
> 	reg |= BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx])
> 
> > +	reg |= 1 << mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx];
> > +	writel_relaxed(reg, mtx->regs + offset);
> > +}
> 
> int mtk_mutex_set_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
> 		      enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
> {
> 	return mtk_mutex_write_mod(mutex, idx, false);
> }
> 
> int mtk_mutex_clear_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
> 			enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
> {
> 	return mtk_mutex_clear_mod(mutex, idx, true);
> }
> 
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_set_mod);
> > +
> > +void mtk_mutex_set_sof(struct mtk_mutex *mutex,
> > +		       enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx)
> > +{
> > +	struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct
> > mtk_mutex_ctx,
> > +						 mutex[mutex->id]);
> > +	unsigned int sof_id;
> > +
> > +	WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 ||
> > +	    idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) {
> > +		dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported SOF table index : %d",
> > idx);
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	sof_id = mtx->data->mutex_table_sof[idx];
> 
> ... same changes here, except we'd have something like
> 
> if (clear)
> 	val = MUTEX_SOF_SINGLE_MODE;
> else
> 	val = mtx->data->mutex_sof[sof_id];
> 
> 	writel_relaxed(val, ...etc)
> 
> but feel free to give me valid reasons to not use this approach.
> 
> In any case, the code looks ok to me.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Angelo