[RFC PATCH v4 3/7] phy: rockcip-pcie: reconstruct driver to support per-lane PHYs
Shawn Lin
shawn.lin at rock-chips.com
Wed Jul 19 02:36:25 PDT 2017
Hi Kishon,
On 2017/7/19 16:08, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
>
> On Wednesday 19 July 2017 12:52 PM, Shawn Lin wrote:
>> This patch reconstructs the whole driver to support per-lane
>> PHYs. Note that we could also support the legacy PHY if you
>> don't provide argument to our of_xlate.
>
> one comment below which I failed to notice before..
I will fix it and respin v5.
BTW, are you fine with all these patches merged via Bjorn's
PCI tree in order to narrow down the timing gap for testing
linux-next? If yes, could you kindly ack patch 3 of V5
if it looks good to you? :)
Thanks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org>
>> Tested-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen at rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v4: None
>> Changes in v3:
>> - remove unnecessary forward declaration
>> - keep mutex inside struct rockchip_pcie_phy
>> - fix wrong check of args number
>> - move de-idle lanes after deasserting the reset
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - deprecate legacy PHY model
>> - improve rockchip_pcie_phy_of_xlate
>> - fix wrong calculation of pwr_cnt and add new init_cnt
>> - add internal locking
>> - introduce per-lane data to simply the code
>>
>> drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
>> index 6904633..b5005a5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
>> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-pcie.c
>> @@ -73,10 +73,39 @@ struct rockchip_pcie_data {
>> struct rockchip_pcie_phy {
>> struct rockchip_pcie_data *phy_data;
>> struct regmap *reg_base;
>> + struct phy_pcie_instance {
>> + struct phy *phy;
>> + u32 index;
>> + } phys[PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM];
>> + struct mutex pcie_mutex;
>> struct reset_control *phy_rst;
>> struct clk *clk_pciephy_ref;
>> + int pwr_cnt;
>> + int init_cnt;
>> };
>>
>> +static inline
>> +struct rockchip_pcie_phy *to_pcie_phy(struct phy_pcie_instance *inst)
>> +{
>> + return container_of(inst, struct rockchip_pcie_phy,
>> + phys[inst->index]);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct phy *rockchip_pcie_phy_of_xlate(struct device *dev,
>> + struct of_phandle_args *args)
>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +
>> + if (args->args_count == 0)
>> + return rk_phy->phys[0].phy;
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] >= PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM))
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> +
>> + return rk_phy->phys[args->args[0]].phy;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>> static inline void phy_wr_cfg(struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy,
>> u32 addr, u32 data)
>> {
>> @@ -116,29 +145,59 @@ static inline u32 phy_rd_cfg(struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy,
>>
>> static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> - struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct phy_pcie_instance *inst = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = to_pcie_phy(inst);
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> +
>> + regmap_write(rk_phy->reg_base,
>> + rk_phy->phy_data->pcie_laneoff,
>> + HIWORD_UPDATE(PHY_LANE_IDLE_OFF,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_MASK,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_A_SHIFT + inst->index));
>> +
>> + if (--rk_phy->pwr_cnt)
>> + goto err_out;
>> +
>> err = reset_control_assert(rk_phy->phy_rst);
>> if (err) {
>> dev_err(&phy->dev, "assert phy_rst err %d\n", err);
>> - return err;
>> + goto err_restore;
>> }
>>
>> +err_out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> return 0;
>> +
>> +err_restore:
>> + ++rk_phy->pwr_cnt;
>> + regmap_write(rk_phy->reg_base,
>> + rk_phy->phy_data->pcie_laneoff,
>> + HIWORD_UPDATE(!PHY_LANE_IDLE_OFF,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_MASK,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_A_SHIFT + inst->index));
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> + return err;
>> }
>>
>> static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> - struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct phy_pcie_instance *inst = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = to_pcie_phy(inst);
>> int err = 0;
>> u32 status;
>> unsigned long timeout;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> +
>> + if (rk_phy->pwr_cnt++)
>> + goto err_out;
>> +
>> err = reset_control_deassert(rk_phy->phy_rst);
>> if (err) {
>> dev_err(&phy->dev, "deassert phy_rst err %d\n", err);
>> - return err;
>> + goto err_pwr_cnt;
>> }
>>
>> regmap_write(rk_phy->reg_base, rk_phy->phy_data->pcie_conf,
>> @@ -146,6 +205,12 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>> PHY_CFG_ADDR_MASK,
>> PHY_CFG_ADDR_SHIFT));
>>
>> + regmap_write(rk_phy->reg_base,
>> + rk_phy->phy_data->pcie_laneoff,
>> + HIWORD_UPDATE(!PHY_LANE_IDLE_OFF,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_MASK,
>> + PHY_LANE_IDLE_A_SHIFT + inst->index));
>> +
>> /*
>> * No documented timeout value for phy operation below,
>> * so we make it large enough here. And we use loop-break
>> @@ -214,18 +279,29 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>> goto err_pll_lock;
>> }
>>
>> +err_out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> return 0;
>>
>> err_pll_lock:
>> reset_control_assert(rk_phy->phy_rst);
>> +err_pwr_cnt:
>> + --rk_phy->pwr_cnt;
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> static int rockchip_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> - struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct phy_pcie_instance *inst = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = to_pcie_phy(inst);
>> int err = 0;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> +
>> + if (rk_phy->init_cnt++)
>> + goto err_out;
>> +
>> err = clk_prepare_enable(rk_phy->clk_pciephy_ref);
>> if (err) {
>> dev_err(&phy->dev, "Fail to enable pcie ref clock.\n");
>> @@ -238,20 +314,33 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
>> goto err_reset;
>> }
>>
>> - return err;
>> +err_out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> + return 0;
>>
>> err_reset:
>> +
>> clk_disable_unprepare(rk_phy->clk_pciephy_ref);
>> err_refclk:
>> + --rk_phy->init_cnt;
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> static int rockchip_pcie_phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
>> {
>> - struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct phy_pcie_instance *inst = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>> + struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy = to_pcie_phy(inst);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> +
>> + if (--rk_phy->init_cnt)
>> + goto err_init_cnt;
>>
>> clk_disable_unprepare(rk_phy->clk_pciephy_ref);
>>
>> +err_init_cnt:
>> + mutex_unlock(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -283,10 +372,10 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> struct rockchip_pcie_phy *rk_phy;
>> - struct phy *generic_phy;
>> struct phy_provider *phy_provider;
>> struct regmap *grf;
>> const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>> + int i;
>>
>> grf = syscon_node_to_regmap(dev->parent->of_node);
>> if (IS_ERR(grf)) {
>> @@ -305,6 +394,8 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> rk_phy->phy_data = (struct rockchip_pcie_data *)of_id->data;
>> rk_phy->reg_base = grf;
>>
>> + mutex_init(&rk_phy->pcie_mutex);
>> +
>> rk_phy->phy_rst = devm_reset_control_get(dev, "phy");
>> if (IS_ERR(rk_phy->phy_rst)) {
>> if (PTR_ERR(rk_phy->phy_rst) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> @@ -319,14 +410,19 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return PTR_ERR(rk_phy->clk_pciephy_ref);
>> }
>>
>> - generic_phy = devm_phy_create(dev, dev->of_node, &ops);
>> - if (IS_ERR(generic_phy)) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "failed to create PHY\n");
>> - return PTR_ERR(generic_phy);
>> + for (i = 0; i < PHY_MAX_LANE_NUM; i++) {
>> + rk_phy->phys[i].phy = devm_phy_create(dev, dev->of_node, &ops);
>> + if (IS_ERR(rk_phy->phys[i].phy)) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to create PHY%d\n", i);
>> + return PTR_ERR(rk_phy->phys[i].phy);
>> + }
>> + rk_phy->phys[i].index = i;
>
>
> For legacy dt, it would create more number of phys than required right? it
> would be nice to fix that.
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
>
>
>
More information about the Linux-rockchip
mailing list