On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 22:34 Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:25:01PM +0100, Niek Linnenbank wrote:
> > Hi Guenter,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 6:46 PM Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Initialize EHCI controllers on AST2600 using the existing
> > > TYPE_PLATFORM_EHCI. After this change, booting ast2600-evb
> > > into Linux successfully instantiates a USB interface after
> > > the necessary changes are made to its devicetree files.
> > >
> > > ehci_hcd: USB 2.0 'Enhanced' Host Controller (EHCI) Driver
> > > ehci-platform: EHCI generic platform driver
> > > ehci-platform 1e6a3000.usb: EHCI Host Controller
> > > ehci-platform 1e6a3000.usb: new USB bus registered, assigned bus
> number 1
> > > ehci-platform 1e6a3000.usb: irq 25, io mem 0x1e6a3000
> > > ehci-platform 1e6a3000.usb: USB 2.0 started, EHCI 1.00
> > > usb usb1: Manufacturer: Linux 5.5.0-09825-ga0802f2d0ef5-dirty ehci_hcd
> > > usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-platform
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net>
> > > ---
> > > v2: Rebased to master (to fix context conflict)
> > > Added Reviewed-by: tag
> > >
> > > hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c
> > > index 90cf1c755d..446b44d31c 100644
> > > --- a/hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c
> > > +++ b/hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600.c
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ static const hwaddr aspeed_soc_ast2600_memmap[] = {
> > > [ASPEED_FMC] = 0x1E620000,
> > > [ASPEED_SPI1] = 0x1E630000,
> > > [ASPEED_SPI2] = 0x1E641000,
> > > + [ASPEED_EHCI1] = 0x1E6A1000,
> > > + [ASPEED_EHCI2] = 0x1E6A3000,
> > > [ASPEED_MII1] = 0x1E650000,
> > > [ASPEED_MII2] = 0x1E650008,
> > > [ASPEED_MII3] = 0x1E650010,
> > > @@ -79,6 +81,8 @@ static const int aspeed_soc_ast2600_irqmap[] = {
> > > [ASPEED_ADC] = 78,
> > > [ASPEED_XDMA] = 6,
> > > [ASPEED_SDHCI] = 43,
> > > + [ASPEED_EHCI1] = 5,
> > > + [ASPEED_EHCI2] = 9,
> > > [ASPEED_EMMC] = 15,
> > > [ASPEED_GPIO] = 40,
> > > [ASPEED_GPIO_1_8V] = 11,
> > > @@ -166,6 +170,11 @@ static void aspeed_soc_ast2600_init(Object *obj)
> > > sizeof(s->spi[i]), typename);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + for (i = 0; i < sc->ehcis_num; i++) {
> > > + sysbus_init_child_obj(obj, "ehci[*]", OBJECT(&s->ehci[i]),
> > > + sizeof(s->ehci[i]), TYPE_PLATFORM_EHCI);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > snprintf(typename, sizeof(typename), "aspeed.sdmc-%s", socname);
> > > sysbus_init_child_obj(obj, "sdmc", OBJECT(&s->sdmc),
> sizeof(s->sdmc),
> > > typename);
> > > @@ -416,6 +425,19 @@ static void aspeed_soc_ast2600_realize(DeviceState
> > > *dev, Error **errp)
> > > s->spi[i].ctrl->flash_window_base);
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* EHCI */
> > > + for (i = 0; i < sc->ehcis_num; i++) {
> > > + object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(&s->ehci[i]), true,
> "realized",
> > > &err);
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + error_propagate(errp, err);
> > > + return;
> > > + }
> > >
> >
> > Would it make sense to directly use error_fatal in the call to
> > object_property_set_bool?
> > That way you can avoid the additional code for propagating the error.
> >
>
> The code matches the pattern used in the rest of the function.
> Given that, I would be hesitant to change it for this one case.
>
I see. There are some uses of error_fatal already in the function, but
improving that might be something for another patch I guess.
>
> >
> > > + sysbus_mmio_map(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->ehci[i]), 0,
> > > + sc->memmap[ASPEED_EHCI1 + i]);
> > > + sysbus_connect_irq(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->ehci[i]), 0,
> > > + aspeed_soc_get_irq(s, ASPEED_EHCI1 + i));
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* SDMC - SDRAM Memory Controller */
> > > object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(&s->sdmc), true, "realized",
> &err);
> > > if (err) {
> > > @@ -534,6 +556,7 @@ static void
> aspeed_soc_ast2600_class_init(ObjectClass
> > > *oc, void *data)
> > > sc->silicon_rev = AST2600_A0_SILICON_REV;
> > > sc->sram_size = 0x10000;
> > > sc->spis_num = 2;
> > > + sc->ehcis_num = 2;
> > >
> >
> > Since this field is only set once here, does it need to be part of the
> > class state?
> >
>
> The same applies to spis_num, wdts_num, and macs_num.
> AspeedSoCClass is defined for all ast2X00 SoCs, and
> the same mechanism is used for all of them. I don't see
> the benefit of deviating from a common mechanism.
>
Ignore my comment here, i did not see this patch was part of previous work
done for the other AST socs as well.
Reviewed-by: Niek Linnenbank <nieklinnenb...@gmail.com>
>
> Guenter
>
