lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 3/5] mmc: shdci-bcm2835: add efficient back-to-back write workaround
On 14-11-04 08:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 12:36 AM, Scott Branden wrote:
>> The bcm2835 has clock domain issues when back to back writes to certain
>> registers are written. The existing driver works around this issue with
>> udelay. A more efficient method is to store the 8 and 16 bit writes
>> to the registers affected and then write them as 32 bits at the appropriate
>> time.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-bcm2835.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-bcm2835.c
>
>> static void bcm2835_sdhci_writew(struct sdhci_host *host, u16 val, int reg)
>> {
>> struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host);
>> - struct bcm2835_sdhci *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv;
>> - u32 oldval = (reg == SDHCI_COMMAND) ? bcm2835_host->shadow :
>> - bcm2835_sdhci_readl(host, reg & ~3);
>> + struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host = pltfm_host->priv;
>
> Is that type change for bcm2835_host really correct?
Yes - at the top of the patch the structure has been expanded and named
appropriately.

-struct bcm2835_sdhci {
- u32 shadow;
+struct bcm2835_sdhci_host {
+ u32 shadow_cmd;
+ u32 shadow_blk;
};
>
>> + } else {
>> + /* Read reg, all other registers are not shadowed */
>> + oldval = readl(host->ioaddr + (reg & ~3));
>
> Is there any reason to use readl() directly here rather than calling
> bcm2835_readl()? ...
Yes, bcm2835_readl does not need to be called in read-modify-write and
shadow register situations and just adds overhead. All that needs to be
called is readl. bcm2835_readl has some existing ugly code in it to
modify the capabilities register on a read function. This info never
needs to be for write as you can't overwrite the capabilities register.
I hope to get rid of the capabilities hack in a future patch as this
should never have been acceptable in upstreamed code to begin with. The
capabilities override should have been passed in through a device tree
entry.
>
>> static void bcm2835_sdhci_writeb(struct sdhci_host *host, u8 val, int reg)
>> {
>> - u32 oldval = bcm2835_sdhci_readl(host, reg & ~3);
>> + u32 oldval = readl(host->ioaddr + (reg & ~3));
>
> ... and here in particular, since this seems like an unrelated change?
Same situation with bcm2835_readl above. No need to call in
read-modify-write situations.
>
>> static int bcm2835_sdhci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct sdhci_host *host;
>> - struct bcm2835_sdhci *bcm2835_host;
>> + struct bcm2835_sdhci_host *bcm2835_host;
>
> Is that type change for bcm2835_host really correct?
>
yes - structure renamed above


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-05 08:42    [W:0.117 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site