Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 04/10] soc: mediatek: Add multiple step bus protection control | From | Matthias Brugger <> | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2020 12:11:01 +0100 |
| |
On 13/02/2020 03:15, Weiyi Lu wrote: > On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 10:23 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: >> >> On 12/02/2020 03:55, Weiyi Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 18:49 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>>> >>>> On 20/12/2019 04:45, Weiyi Lu wrote: >>>>> Both MT8183 & MT6765 have more control steps of bus protection >>>>> than previous project. And there add more bus protection registers >>>>> reside at infracfg & smi-common. Also add new APIs for multiple >>>>> step bus protection control with more customized arguments. >>>>> And then use bp_table for bus protection of all compatibles, >>>>> instead of mixing bus_prot_mask and bus_prot_reg_update. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@mediatek.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile | 2 +- >>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 117 +++++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 4 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/scpsys-ext.h >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile b/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile >>>>> index b017330..b442be9 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile >>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile >>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ >>>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_CMDQ) += mtk-cmdq-helper.o >>>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_INFRACFG) += mtk-infracfg.o >>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_INFRACFG) += mtk-infracfg.o mtk-scpsys-ext.o >>>> >>>> It seems that we would need another patch which get's rid of the mtk-infracfg >>>> first and then add stuff like the possibility to have different steps. >>>> >>> >>> Actually I have a PATCH 05/11 to remove the mtk-infracfg. >>> In this patch, I have some changes, like calling >>> mtk_scpsys_ext_set_bus_protection(...) instead of >>> mtk_infracfg_set_bus_protection(...) in scpsys_bus_protect_enable(...) >>> and replacing bus_prot_mask by bp_table. >>> I thought I should introduce the new method first and remove useless one >>> later. What do you think? >> >> Yes, but first patch would be a step to get rid of mtk-infracfg and a second >> patch add bp_table and the like. >> > > OK, I'll split into such sequence. > >>> >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_PMIC_WRAP) += mtk-pmic-wrap.o >>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MTK_SCPSYS) += mtk-scpsys.o >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000..df402ac >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys-ext.c >>>> >>>> I'm not quite sure why we should put this into a new file. I suppose the >>>> rational behind it is the fact that we access other blocks through regmap. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, those operation are accross infracfg and smi-common so we put these >>> into new files. >> >> Are you exepct other drivers to use this functions? If not I will have to think >> again, but I don't see any reason to put it into a new file. >> > > I thought no other driver would use these functions unless there will > have drivers want to take over the bus protection process by themselves. > > Do you prefer just putting these functions into mtk-scpsys.c? >
Yes I'd prefer that.
Regards, Matthias
| |