Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Feb 2024 13:45:41 -0800 | From | Unnathi Chalicheemala <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] soc: qcom: llcc: Add regmap for Broadcast_AND region |
| |
On 2/6/2024 10:42 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 6.02.2024 08:15, Unnathi Chalicheemala wrote: >> Define new regmap structure for Broadcast_AND region and initialize >> regmap for Broadcast_AND region when HW block version >> is greater than 4.1 for backwards compatibility. > > Are they actually separate regions and not a single contiguous one? >
Yes, they are separate regions.
>> >> Switch from broadcast_OR to broadcast_AND region for checking >> status bit 1 as Broadcast_OR region checks only for bit 0. >> >> Signed-off-by: Unnathi Chalicheemala <quic_uchalich@quicinc.com> >> --- >> drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- >> include/linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h | 4 +++- >> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c >> index 4ca88eaebf06..fbd2542cd4c5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c >> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c >> @@ -849,9 +849,14 @@ static int llcc_update_act_ctrl(u32 sid, >> return ret; >> >> if (drv_data->version >= LLCC_VERSION_4_1_0_0) { >> - ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(drv_data->bcast_regmap, status_reg, >> - slice_status, (slice_status & ACT_COMPLETE), >> - 0, LLCC_STATUS_READ_DELAY); >> + if (!drv_data->bcast_and_regmap) >> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(drv_data->bcast_regmap, status_reg, >> + slice_status, (slice_status & ACT_COMPLETE), >> + 0, LLCC_STATUS_READ_DELAY); >> + else >> + ret = regmap_read_poll_timeout(drv_data->bcast_and_regmap, status_reg, >> + slice_status, (slice_status & ACT_COMPLETE), >> + 0, LLCC_STATUS_READ_DELAY); > > struct regmap *regmap = drv_data->bcast_and_regmap ?: bcast_regmap; > > ?
Ack. Will minimize the redundancy.
> >> + if (drv_data->version >= LLCC_VERSION_4_1_0_0) { > > This check is rather redundant.. If there's no such region in hardware, > it won't be described, and as such the _get()s will return some sort > of an error. >
I see what you're saying.
> Might as well make it a comment that it's intended for >=v4.1 and > definitely leave a comment for the next guy that there's a backwards > compatibility quirk involved..
Ack. Thanks for the review Konrad!
> > Konrad >
| |