Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:41:42 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V6 05/11] coresight: replicator: Move ACPI support from AMBA driver to platform driver | From | Suzuki K Poulose <> |
| |
On 13/03/2024 02:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 3/12/24 20:09, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> On 12/03/2024 10:23, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>> Add support for the dynamic replicator device in the platform driver, which >>> can then be used on ACPI based platforms. This change would now allow >>> runtime power management for replicator devices on ACPI based systems. >>> >>> The driver would try to enable the APB clock if available. Also, rename the >>> code to reflect the fact that it now handles both static and dynamic >>> replicators. But first this refactors replicator_probe() making sure it can >>> be used both for platform and AMBA drivers, by moving the pm_runtime_put() >>> to the callers. >>> >>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org> >>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> >>> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org> >>> Cc: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> >>> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org >>> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> # Boot and driver probe only >>> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> # For ACPI related changes >>> Reviewed-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> >>> --- >>> Changes in V6: >>> >>> - Added clk_disable_unprepare() for pclk in replicator_probe() error path >>> - Added WARN_ON(!drvdata) check in replicator_platform_remove() >>> - Added additional elements for acpi_device_id[] >>> >>> drivers/acpi/arm64/amba.c | 1 - >>> .../coresight/coresight-replicator.c | 68 ++++++++++++------- >>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/amba.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/amba.c >>> index 171b5c2c7edd..270f4e3819a2 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/amba.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/amba.c >>> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id amba_id_list[] = { >>> {"ARMHC503", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight Debug */ >>> {"ARMHC979", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight TPIU */ >>> {"ARMHC97C", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight SoC-400 TMC, SoC-600 ETF/ETB */ >>> - {"ARMHC98D", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight Dynamic Replicator */ >>> {"ARMHC9CA", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight CATU */ >>> {"ARMHC9FF", 0}, /* ARM CoreSight Dynamic Funnel */ >>> {"", 0}, >>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c >>> index ddb530a8436f..ed9be5435f94 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c >>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator.c >>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ DEFINE_CORESIGHT_DEVLIST(replicator_devs, "replicator"); >>> * @base: memory mapped base address for this component. Also indicates >>> * whether this one is programmable or not. >>> * @atclk: optional clock for the core parts of the replicator. >>> + * @pclk: APB clock if present, otherwise NULL >>> * @csdev: component vitals needed by the framework >>> * @spinlock: serialize enable/disable operations. >>> * @check_idfilter_val: check if the context is lost upon clock removal. >>> @@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ DEFINE_CORESIGHT_DEVLIST(replicator_devs, "replicator"); >>> struct replicator_drvdata { >>> void __iomem *base; >>> struct clk *atclk; >>> + struct clk *pclk; >>> struct coresight_device *csdev; >>> spinlock_t spinlock; >>> bool check_idfilter_val; >>> @@ -243,6 +245,10 @@ static int replicator_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *res) >>> return ret; >>> } >>> + drvdata->pclk = coresight_get_enable_apb_pclk(dev); >>> + if (IS_ERR(drvdata->pclk)) >>> + return -ENODEV; >>> + >>> /* >>> * Map the device base for dynamic-replicator, which has been >>> * validated by AMBA core >>> @@ -285,11 +291,12 @@ static int replicator_probe(struct device *dev, struct resource *res) >>> } >>> replicator_reset(drvdata); >>> - pm_runtime_put(dev); >>> out_disable_clk: >>> if (ret && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(drvdata->atclk)) >>> clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->atclk); >>> + if (ret && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(drvdata->pclk)) >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->pclk); >>> return ret; >>> } >>> @@ -301,29 +308,34 @@ static int replicator_remove(struct device *dev) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -static int static_replicator_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> +static int replicator_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> { >>> + struct resource *res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0); >>> int ret; >>> pm_runtime_get_noresume(&pdev->dev); >>> pm_runtime_set_active(&pdev->dev); >>> pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev); >>> - /* Static replicators do not have programming base */ >>> - ret = replicator_probe(&pdev->dev, NULL); >>> - >>> - if (ret) { >>> - pm_runtime_put_noidle(&pdev->dev); >>> + ret = replicator_probe(&pdev->dev, res); >>> + pm_runtime_put(&pdev->dev); >>> + if (ret) >>> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); >>> - } >>> return ret; >>> } >>> -static void static_replicator_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> +static void replicator_platform_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> { >>> + struct replicator_drvdata *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev); >>> + >>> + if (WARN_ON(!drvdata)) >>> + return; >>> + >>> replicator_remove(&pdev->dev); >>> pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev); >>> + if (drvdata && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(drvdata->pclk)) >>> + clk_put(drvdata->pclk);
The comment below applies here. We already return for !drvdata, so you don't need a duplicate check.
>>> } >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PM >>> @@ -334,6 +346,8 @@ static int replicator_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev) >>> if (drvdata && !IS_ERR(drvdata->atclk)) >>> clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->atclk); >>> + if (drvdata && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(drvdata->pclk)) >>> + clk_disable_unprepare(drvdata->pclk); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -344,6 +358,8 @@ static int replicator_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) >>> if (drvdata && !IS_ERR(drvdata->atclk)) >>> clk_prepare_enable(drvdata->atclk); >>> + if (drvdata && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(drvdata->pclk)) >>> + clk_prepare_enable(drvdata->pclk); >> >> nit: drvdata is != NULL, so could drop it > But we already have a similar check for drvdata->atclk above, would not > dropping drvdata for drvdata->pclk cause inconsistency and asymmetry ?
Sorry, I meant this for above. See above.
| |