Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:27:17 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v14 1/6] soc: mediatek: mutex: add common interface to accommodate multiple modules operationg MUTEX | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 11/04/22 09:23, Moudy Ho ha scritto: > In order to allow multiple modules to operate MUTEX hardware through > a common interfrace, a flexible index "mtk_mutex_table_index" needs to > be added to replace original component ID so that like DDP and MDP > can add their own MUTEX table settings independently. > > In addition, 4 generic interface "mtk_mutex_set_mod", "mtk_mutex_set_sof", > "mtk_mutex_clear_mod" and "mtk_mutex_clear_sof" have been added, which is > expected to replace the "mtk_mutex_add_comp" and "mtk_mutex_remove_comp" > pair originally dedicated to DDP in the future. > > Signed-off-by: Moudy Ho <moudy.ho@mediatek.com> > Change-Id: I6a2ab74fccf36248165ce4a6b268d82a1177afc9 > --- > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.h | 21 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c > index aaf8fc1abb43..48a04dce50d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c > +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-mutex.c > @@ -156,6 +156,8 @@ struct mtk_mutex_data { > const unsigned int *mutex_sof; > const unsigned int mutex_mod_reg; > const unsigned int mutex_sof_reg; > + const unsigned int *mutex_table_mod; > + const unsigned int *mutex_table_sof; > const bool no_clk; > }; > > @@ -445,6 +447,54 @@ void mtk_mutex_add_comp(struct mtk_mutex *mutex, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_add_comp); >
Hello Moudy,
Some critical things, and one cleanup.
First of all, the commit title is very long, and it also contains a typo. I would go for something like "soc: mediatek: mutex: Add common interface for modules setting".
Also, please remove your internal "Change-Id" tag, this is meaningless on upstream, hence not applicable here.
Now for the cleanup: I have an idea to make this a bit shorter (and please feel free to change function names with something more appropriate, if needed):
static int mtk_mutex_write_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex, enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx, bool clear) {
> +{ > + struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct mtk_mutex_ctx, > + mutex[mutex->id]); > + unsigned int reg; > + unsigned int offset; > + > + WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex); > + > + if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 || > + idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) { > + dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported MOD table index : %d", idx); > + return;
return -EINVAL;
> + } > + > + offset = DISP_REG_MUTEX_MOD(mtx->data->mutex_mod_reg, > + mutex->id); > + > + reg = readl_relaxed(mtx->regs + offset);
if (clear) reg &= ~BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx]) else reg |= BIT(mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx])
> + reg |= 1 << mtx->data->mutex_table_mod[idx]; > + writel_relaxed(reg, mtx->regs + offset); > +}
int mtk_mutex_set_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex, enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx) { return mtk_mutex_write_mod(mutex, idx, false); }
int mtk_mutex_clear_mod(struct mtk_mutex *mutex, enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx) { return mtk_mutex_clear_mod(mutex, idx, true); }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mtk_mutex_set_mod); > + > +void mtk_mutex_set_sof(struct mtk_mutex *mutex, > + enum mtk_mutex_table_index idx) > +{ > + struct mtk_mutex_ctx *mtx = container_of(mutex, struct mtk_mutex_ctx, > + mutex[mutex->id]); > + unsigned int sof_id; > + > + WARN_ON(&mtx->mutex[mutex->id] != mutex); > + > + if (idx < MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MDP_RDMA0 || > + idx >= MUTEX_TABLE_IDX_MAX) { > + dev_err(mtx->dev, "Not supported SOF table index : %d", idx); > + return; > + } > + > + sof_id = mtx->data->mutex_table_sof[idx];
... same changes here, except we'd have something like
if (clear) val = MUTEX_SOF_SINGLE_MODE; else val = mtx->data->mutex_sof[sof_id];
writel_relaxed(val, ...etc)
but feel free to give me valid reasons to not use this approach.
In any case, the code looks ok to me.
Regards, Angelo
| |