| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4607132.KdVH8UGEg4@phil>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:18:55 +0100
From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: zhangqing <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>
Cc: wxt@...k-chips.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
mark.rutland@....com, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
galak@...eaurora.org, khilman@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
huangtao@...k-chips.com, zyw@...k-chips.com,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: rockchip: power-domain: Modify power domain driver for rk3368
Am Freitag, 8. Januar 2016, 09:08:14 schrieb zhangqing:
> On 01/08/2016 12:25 AM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Elaine,
> >
> > Am Freitag, 8. Januar 2016, 08:05:44 schrieb zhangqing:
> >> This driver is modified to support RK3368 SoC.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: zhangqing <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c | 33
> >>
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h
> >>
> >> | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
> >> |
> >> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> >> b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c index 534c589..6cdffb1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
> >> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >>
> >> #include <linux/regmap.h>
> >> #include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
> >> #include <dt-bindings/power/rk3288-power.h>
> >>
> >> +#include <dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h>
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_domain_info {
> >>
> >> int pwr_mask;
> >>
> >> @@ -75,6 +76,9 @@ struct rockchip_pmu {
> >>
> >> #define DOMAIN_RK3288(pwr, status, req) \
> >>
> >> DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, req, (req) + 16)
> >>
> >> +#define DOMAIN_RK3368(pwr, status, req) \
> >> + DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, (req) + 16, req)
> >> +
> >>
> >> static bool rockchip_pmu_domain_is_idle(struct rockchip_pm_domain
> >> *pd)
> >> {
> >>
> >> struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
> >>
> >> @@ -444,6 +448,14 @@ static const struct rockchip_domain_info
> >> rk3288_pm_domains[] = { [RK3288_PD_GPU] = DOMAIN_RK3288(9, 9, 2),
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct rockchip_domain_info rk3368_pm_domains[] = {
> >> + [RK3368_PD_PERI] = DOMAIN_RK3368(13, 12, 6),
> >> + [RK3368_PD_VIO] = DOMAIN_RK3368(15, 14, 8),
> >> + [RK3368_PD_VIDEO] = DOMAIN_RK3368(14, 13, 7),
> >> + [RK3368_PD_GPU_0] = DOMAIN_RK3368(16, 15, 2),
> >> + [RK3368_PD_GPU_1] = DOMAIN_RK3368(17, 16, 2),
> >> +};
> >
> > The structure in the registers (and thus the macros you define above) is
> > the same between rk3288 and rk3368, so there is no need to define that
> > a second time. It is perfectly fine to re-use the DOMAIN_RK3288 macro
> > here and saves double-definitions. [see our clock-drivers which already
> > do this for the common parts].
>
> The ack_mask bit and idle_mask bit is different in rk3368.
> you can check the :
>
> +#define DOMAIN_RK3368(pwr, status, req) \
> + DOMAIN(pwr, status, req,(req) + 16, req)
> +
> But the rk3288 is :
> #define DOMAIN_RK3288(pwr, status, req) \
> DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, req, (req) + 16)
ah sorry, misread that then ... so please forget I said anything ;-)
Heiko
>
> >> +
> >>
> >> static const struct rockchip_pmu_info rk3288_pmu = {
> >>
> >> .pwr_offset = 0x08,
> >> .status_offset = 0x0c,
> >>
> >> @@ -461,11 +473,32 @@ static const struct rockchip_pmu_info rk3288_pmu
> >> = { .domain_info = rk3288_pm_domains,
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> +static const struct rockchip_pmu_info rk3368_pmu = {
> >> + .pwr_offset = 0x0c,
> >> + .status_offset = 0x10,
> >> + .req_offset = 0x3c,
> >> + .idle_offset = 0x40,
> >> + .ack_offset = 0x40,
> >> +
> >> + .core_pwrcnt_offset = 0x48,
> >> + .gpu_pwrcnt_offset = 0x50,
> >> +
> >> + .core_power_transition_time = 24,
> >> + .gpu_power_transition_time = 24,
> >> +
> >> + .num_domains = ARRAY_SIZE(rk3368_pm_domains),
> >> + .domain_info = rk3368_pm_domains,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>
> >> static const struct of_device_id rockchip_pm_domain_dt_match[] = {
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> .compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-power-controller",
> >> .data = (void *)&rk3288_pmu,
> >>
> >> },
> >>
> >> + {
> >> + .compatible = "rockchip,rk3368-power-controller",
> >> + .data = (void *)&rk3368_pmu,
> >> + },
> >>
> >> { /* sentinel */ },
> >>
> >> };
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h
> >> b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..93633d5
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/rk3368-power.h
> >
> > Please split the addition of the binding-header into a separate patch.
> > We
> > will need the header in both the soc-specific code as well as the
> > devicetree side, which requires the header being in a shared branch.
> >
> > Otherwise patch looks great.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Heiko
> >
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
> >> +#ifndef __DT_BINDINGS_POWER_RK3368_POWER_H__
> >> +#define __DT_BINDINGS_POWER_RK3368_POWER_H__
> >> +
> >> +/* VD_CORE */
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_L0 0
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_L1 1
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_L2 2
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_L3 3
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_SCU_L 4
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_B0 5
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_B1 6
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_B2 7
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_A53_B3 8
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_SCU_B 9
> >> +
> >> +/* VD_LOGIC */
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_BUS 10
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_PERI 11
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_VIO 12
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_ALIVE 13
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_VIDEO 14
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_GPU_0 15
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_GPU_1 16
> >> +
> >> +/* VD_PMU */
> >> +#define RK3368_PD_PMU 17
> >> +
> >> +#endif
Powered by blists - more mailing lists