Message-ID: <1456477230.17841.2.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:00:30 +0800
From:	Horng-Shyang Liao <hs.liao@...iatek.com>
To:	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
CC:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
	<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
	srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
	Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
	CK HU <ck.hu@...iatek.com>,
	cawa cheng <cawa.cheng@...iatek.com>,
	Bibby Hsieh <bibby.hsieh@...iatek.com>,
	YT Shen <yt.shen@...iatek.com>,
	Daoyuan Huang <daoyuan.huang@...iatek.com>,
	"Damon Chu" <damon.chu@...iatek.com>,
	Josh-YC Liu <josh-yc.liu@...iatek.com>,
	"Glory Hung" <glory.hung@...iatek.com>,
	Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>,
	"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] CMDQ: Mediatek CMDQ driver

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 14:40 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Thanks for your comment.
> > This solution looks good to me.
> > I will change it as your suggestion.
> >
> > But, I have a question about 'mask out the provided *device virtual*
> > address'.
> > Are lower 16-bits (or 24-bits for JUMP op) of device virtual address the
> > same as device physical address?
> 
> I'm not sure.  But I doubt it we can rely on this.
> My guess would be that the ioremap only preserves the lower 12 bits
> (4k page size).
> 
> > If not, we still need to pass in physical address into CMDQ driver.
> 
> Or, instead of the iommu/slot approach, we can just provide a
> registration function for the gce driver.
> Each gce consumer could then have a simple gce node, with no slot/address:
> 
>   mediatek,gce = <&gce>;
> 
> Then on probe, the gce consumer could pass in its (struct device *) to
> gce_register_device().  gce_register_device() could then access the
> device's of_node to extract its physical address range, and look up
> its physical address in its table of per-soc of
> "device_address:gce_subsys_address" entries.  If the physical address
> is in a valid subsys ranges, the gce_register_device would cache the
> subsys address, and an offset in a (struct gce_consumer).
> gce_register_device() could then add this struct to a struct list_head
> of gce_consumers, and finally return a pointer to it back to the
> caller.
> 
> Later, the gce consumer could pass in ths (struct gce_consumer *) when
> make gce calls, along with the *offset* (not the physical address or
> virtual address) for the register that it wishes to access.  Then the
> gce driver can simply use the gce_consumer->subsys entry to create a
> gce address from the passed in offset.
> 
> This will keep the binding very simple, and would remove the need to
> convert from device virtual to physical addresses by the gce consumer,
> but require a little more per-gce-consumer setup.
> 
> -Dan

Hi Dan,

When I try to implement this comment, I realize the only benefit from
this comment is to wrap physical address.

Recall from my previous reply: gce address = subsys + valid low bits.
So, CMDQ driver still need to do "(Base + offset) & valid mask" to get
gce valid low bits.
Current implementation let display driver do "base + offset".
This comment just transfers this calculation from display driver to CMDQ
driver.

However, this comment will let CMDQ interface (behavior) become more
complicated, e.g. gce_register_device(), struct gce_consumer, and int
cmdq_rec_write(struct cmdq_rec *handle, u32 value, struct gce_consumer
*consumer, u32 offset)

Do you think it is worth to do this effort to wrap physical address?

Thanks,
HS Liao

Powered by blists - more mailing lists