Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] soc: mediatek: pm-domains: Add SMI block as bus protection block

[Matthias Brugger]

On 05/10/2020 03:48, Nicolas Boichat wrote:

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:56 PM Matthias Brugger <matthias....@gmail.com> wrote:

On 01/10/2020 18:01, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:

From: Matthias Brugger <mbrug...@suse.com>

Apart from the infracfg block, the SMI block is used to enable the bus
protection for some power domains. Add support for this block.

Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <mbrug...@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balle...@collabora.com>
---

Changes in v2: None

   drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
   include/linux/soc/mediatek/infracfg.h |  6 +++
   2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c 
b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c
index b5e7c9846c34..38f2630bdd0a 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pm-domains.c
@@ -56,8 +56,25 @@

   #define SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA               3

+#define _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, _update) {        \
+             .bus_prot_mask = (_mask),               \
+             .bus_prot_set = _set,                   \
+             .bus_prot_clr = _clr,                   \
+             .bus_prot_sta = _sta,                   \
+             .bus_prot_reg_update = _update,         \
+     }
+
+#define BUS_PROT_WR(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta)         \
+             _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, false)
+
+#define BUS_PROT_UPDATE(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta)             \
+             _BUS_PROT(_mask, _set, _clr, _sta, true)
+
   struct scpsys_bus_prot_data {
       u32 bus_prot_mask;
+     u32 bus_prot_set;
+     u32 bus_prot_clr;
+     u32 bus_prot_sta;
       bool bus_prot_reg_update;
   };

@@ -69,6 +86,7 @@ struct scpsys_bus_prot_data {
    * @sram_pdn_ack_bits: The mask for sram power control acked bits.
    * @caps: The flag for active wake-up action.
    * @bp_infracfg: bus protection for infracfg subsystem
+ * @bp_smi: bus protection for smi subsystem
    */
   struct scpsys_domain_data {
       u32 sta_mask;
@@ -77,6 +95,7 @@ struct scpsys_domain_data {
       u32 sram_pdn_ack_bits;
       u8 caps;
       const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data bp_infracfg[SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA];
+     const struct scpsys_bus_prot_data bp_smi[SPM_MAX_BUS_PROT_DATA];
   };

   struct scpsys_domain {
@@ -86,6 +105,7 @@ struct scpsys_domain {
       int num_clks;
       struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
       struct regmap *infracfg;
+     struct regmap *smi;
   };

   struct scpsys_soc_data {
@@ -175,9 +195,9 @@ static int _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(const struct 
scpsys_bus_prot_data *bpd, st
               if (bpd[i].bus_prot_reg_update)
                       regmap_update_bits(regmap, INFRA_TOPAXI_PROTECTEN, mask, 
mask);
               else
-                     regmap_write(regmap, INFRA_TOPAXI_PROTECTEN_SET, mask);
+                     regmap_write(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_set, mask);

-             ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, INFRA_TOPAXI_PROTECTSTA1,
+             ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(regmap, bpd[i].bus_prot_sta,
                                              val, (val & mask) == mask,
                                              MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, 
MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT);
               if (ret)
@@ -193,7 +213,11 @@ static int scpsys_bus_protect_enable(struct scpsys_domain 
*pd)
       int ret;

       ret = _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(bpd, pd->infracfg);
-     return ret;
+     if (ret)
+             return ret;
+
+     bpd = pd->data->bp_smi;
+     return _scpsys_bus_protect_enable(bpd, pd->smi);

Not a huge fan or reusing bpd for 2 different things.

I think this is easier to follow:

_scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_infracfg, pd->infracfg);
...
_scpsys_bus_protect_enable(pd->data->bp_smi, pd->smi);

Sounds reasonable, yes :)