Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:24:04 -0800 | From | Amit Kucheria <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 01/11] arm: mxc: TrustZone interrupt controller (TZIC) for i.MX5 family |
| |
On 10 Feb 02, Eric Miao wrote: > Hi Amit, > > Just some nit-picking review comments, see below: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Amit Kucheria > <amit.kucheria@canonical.com> wrote: > > Freescale i.MX51 processor uses a new interrupt controller. Add > > driver for TrustZone Interrupt Controller > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@canonical.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig | 8 ++ > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile | 3 + > > arch/arm/plat-mxc/tzic.c | 182 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 193 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/arm/plat-mxc/tzic.c > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig > > index 8b0a1ee..59558c4 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig > > @@ -62,6 +62,14 @@ config MXC_IRQ_PRIOR > > requirements for timing. > > Say N here, unless you have a specialized requirement. > > > > +config MXC_TZIC > > + bool "Enable TrustZone Interrupt Controller" > > + depends on ARCH_MX51 > > This is the first patch of the base port, yet I cannot find any reference to > this ARCH_MX51, did you miss something?
ARCH_MX51 is only introduced in the later patches that add the core i.MX5 code. Since TZIC is not inherently dependent on i.MX5 (it's merely the first processor to use it), I thought of splitting it out as a separate patch.
Does this break the sanctity of one self-contained change?
> > + help > > + This will be automatically selected for all processors > > + containing this interrupt controller. > > + Say N here only if you are really sure. > > + > > config MXC_PWM > > tristate "Enable PWM driver" > > depends on ARCH_MXC > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile > > index 996cbac..0202ad9 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/Makefile > > @@ -5,6 +5,9 @@ > > # Common support > > obj-y := irq.o clock.o gpio.o time.o devices.o cpu.o system.o > > > > +# MX51 uses the TZIC interrupt controller, older platforms use AVIC (irq.o) > > +obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_TZIC) += tzic.o > > + > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX1) += iomux-mx1-mx2.o dma-mx1-mx2.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MX2) += iomux-mx1-mx2.o dma-mx1-mx2.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC_IOMUX_V3) += iomux-v3.o > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/tzic.c b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/tzic.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..00cb0ad > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/tzic.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ > > +/* > > + * Copyright 2004-2009 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > + * > > + * The code contained herein is licensed under the GNU General Public > > + * License. You may obtain a copy of the GNU General Public License > > + * Version 2 or later at the following locations: > > + * > > + * http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html > > + * http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > > + */ > > + > > +#include <linux/module.h> > > +#include <linux/moduleparam.h> > > +#include <linux/init.h> > > +#include <linux/device.h> > > +#include <linux/errno.h> > > +#include <linux/io.h> > > + > > +#include <asm/mach/irq.h> > > + > > +#include <mach/hardware.h> > > + > > +/* > > + ***************************************** > > + * TZIC Registers * > > + ***************************************** > > + */ > > + > > +#define TZIC_INTCNTL 0x0000 /* Control register */ > > +#define TZIC_INTTYPE 0x0004 /* Controller Type register */ > > +#define TZIC_IMPID 0x0008 /* Distributor Implementer Identification */ > > +#define TZIC_PRIOMASK 0x000C /* Priority Mask Reg */ > > +#define TZIC_SYNCCTRL 0x0010 /* Synchronizer Control register */ > > +#define TZIC_DSMINT 0x0014 /* DSM interrupt Holdoffregister */ > > +#define TZIC_INTSEC0 0x0080 /* Interrupt Security register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_ENSET0 0x0100 /* Enable Set Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_ENCLEAR0 0x0180 /* Enable Clear Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_SRCSET0 0x0200 /* Source Set Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_SRCCLAR0 0x0280 /* Source Clear Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_PRIORITY0 0x0400 /* Priority Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_PND0 0x0D00 /* Pending Register 0 */ > > +#define TZIC_HIPND0 0x0D80 /* High Priority Pending Register */ > > +#define TZIC_WAKEUP0 0x0E00 /* Wakeup Config Register */ > > +#define TZIC_SWINT 0x0F00 /* Software Interrupt Rigger Register */ > > +#define TZIC_ID0 0x0FD0 /* Indentification Register 0 */ > > + > > +void __iomem *tzic_base; > > This can just be made to 'static' if it's not used elsewhere, and I'm > wondering if it's neater to define them as: > > #define TZIC_INTCNTL (tzic_base + 0x0000) > > so to make the code below short and handy.
tzic_base is actually used in entry-macro.S in patch 0004. I've tried to follow AVIC's way of doing things.
> > + > > +/* > > + * Disable interrupt number "irq" in the TZIC > > I don't think this follows kernel API doc exactly, you may want to have a > look into Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt.
OK.
> > + * > > + * @param irq interrupt source number > > + */ > > +static void tzic_mask_irq(unsigned int irq) > > +{ > > + int index, off; > > + > > + index = irq >> 5; > > + off = irq & 0x1F; > > + __raw_writel(1 << off, tzic_base + TZIC_ENCLEAR0 + (index << 2)); > > I'll normally define TZIC_ENCLEAR0 then as: > > #define TZIC_ENCLEAR(i) (0x0180 + ((i) << 2)) > > so the above can be written as: > > __raw_writel(1 << off, tzic_base + TZIC_ENCLEAR(index)); > > or by including tzic_base into TZIC_*, simply as: > > __raw_writel(1 << off, TZIC_ENCLEAR(index));
OK.
> > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Enable interrupt number "irq" in the TZIC > > + * > > + * @param irq interrupt source number > > + */ > > +static void tzic_unmask_irq(unsigned int irq) > > +{ > > + int index, off; > > + > > + index = irq >> 5; > > + off = irq & 0x1F; > > + __raw_writel(1 << off, tzic_base + TZIC_ENSET0 + (index << 2)); > > +} > > + > > +static unsigned int wakeup_intr[4]; > > + > > +/* > > + * Set interrupt number "irq" in the TZIC as a wake-up source. > > + * > > + * @param irq interrupt source number > > + * @param enable enable as wake-up if equal to non-zero > > + * disble as wake-up if equal to zero > > + * > > + * @return This function returns 0 on success. > > + */ > > +static int tzic_set_wake_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int enable) > > +{ > > + unsigned int index, off; > > + > > + index = irq >> 5; > > + off = irq & 0x1F; > > + > > + if (index > 3) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (enable) > > + wakeup_intr[index] |= (1 << off); > > + else > > + wakeup_intr[index] &= ~(1 << off); > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static struct irq_chip mxc_tzic_chip = { > > + .name = "MXC_TZIC", > > + .ack = tzic_mask_irq, > > + .mask = tzic_mask_irq, > > + .unmask = tzic_unmask_irq, > > + .set_wake = tzic_set_wake_irq, > > +}; > > + > > +/* > > + * This function initializes the TZIC hardware and disables all the > > + * interrupts. It registers the interrupt enable and disable functions > > + * to the kernel for each interrupt source. > > + */ > > +void __init tzic_init_irq(void __iomem *irqbase) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + > > + tzic_base = irqbase; > > + /* put the TZIC into the reset value with > > + * all interrupts disabled > > + */ > > + i = __raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_INTCNTL); > > Mixing the use of 'i' as both a signed counter and register value might > not be a good idea, provided it's not guaranteed from theory that 'i' as > an integer could not be sufficient to hold the value returned from > __raw_readl()
Fair enough.
> > + > > + __raw_writel(0x80010001, tzic_base + TZIC_INTCNTL); > > + i = __raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_INTCNTL); > > + __raw_writel(0x1f, tzic_base + TZIC_PRIOMASK); > > + i = __raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_PRIOMASK); > > + __raw_writel(0x02, tzic_base + TZIC_SYNCCTRL); > > + i = __raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_SYNCCTRL); > > Are these read-back really necessary? We can start without them and add them > later if they do cause issues.
Can anybody from Freescale comment whether the read-back is necessary?
I'll remove it for now to see what happens in my testing.
> > + > > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) > > + __raw_writel(0xFFFFFFFF, tzic_base + TZIC_INTSEC0 + i * 4); > > + > > + /* disable all interrupts */ > > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) > > + __raw_writel(0xFFFFFFFF, tzic_base + TZIC_ENCLEAR0 + i * 4); > > + > > + /* all IRQ no FIQ Warning :: No selection */ > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < MXC_INTERNAL_IRQS; i++) { > > + set_irq_chip(i, &mxc_tzic_chip); > > + set_irq_handler(i, handle_level_irq); > > + set_irq_flags(i, IRQF_VALID); > > + } > > + > > + printk(KERN_INFO "TrustZone Interrupt Controller (TZIC) initialized\n"); > > You may want to use pr_info() for short.
OK
> > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * enable wakeup interrupt > > + * > > + * @param is_idle 1 if called in idle loop (ENSET register); > > + * 0 to be used when called from low power entry > > + * @return 0 if successful; non-zero otherwise > > + * > > + */ > > +int tzic_enable_wake(int is_idle) > > +{ > > + unsigned int i, v; > > + > > + __raw_writel(1, tzic_base + TZIC_DSMINT); > > + if (unlikely(__raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_DSMINT) == 0)) > > + return -EAGAIN; > > Looks like an unnecessary read-back provided the silicon is sane enough.
Again, Dinh/Rob can you comment?
> > + > > + if (likely(is_idle)) { > > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > > + v = __raw_readl(tzic_base + TZIC_ENSET0 + i * 4); > > + __raw_writel(v, tzic_base + TZIC_WAKEUP0 + i * 4); > > + } > > + } else { > > + for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > > + v = wakeup_intr[i]; > > + __raw_writel(v, tzic_base + TZIC_WAKEUP0 + i * 4); > > + } > > + } > > Or could be simplified to: > > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > v = is_idle ? __raw_readl(TZIC_ENSET(i)) : wakeup_intr[i]; > __raw_writel(v, TZIC_WAKEUP(i)); > }
OK
> but just nit-picking comments, so it's up to you. > > > + return 0; > > +} > > Mmmm.... this being called elsewhere, I'm thinking about making this a > sys_device and having this called within sysdev_class.suspend() to make > this file rather self-contained.
That is the idea once the base port is upstream.
Thanks for the review.
/Amit -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria@canonical.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |