| 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: <CANMq1KAYU8xVcdhYBDwy8Nh+=naH5bDYyJ2seZWHzvNHW=eDvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 20:07:28 +0800
From: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
To: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@...iatek.com>
Cc: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
James Liao <jamesjj.liao@...iatek.com>,
Fan Chen <fan.chen@...iatek.com>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
srv_heupstream <srv_heupstream@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/14] soc: mediatek: Refactor sram control
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:02 PM Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@...iatek.com> wrote:
>
> Put sram enable and disable control in separate functions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@...iatek.com>
Refactoring looks ok, just a small comment.
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> index 3e9be07a2627..65b734b40098 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> @@ -235,12 +235,55 @@ static void scpsys_clk_disable(struct clk *clk[], int max_num)
> }
> }
>
> +static int scpsys_sram_enable(struct scp_domain *scpd, void __iomem *ctl_addr)
> +{
> + u32 val;
> + u32 pdn_ack = scpd->data->sram_pdn_ack_bits;
> + int tmp;
> +
> + val = readl(ctl_addr) & ~scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
> + writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +
> + /* Either wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 0 or have a force wait */
> + if (MTK_SCPD_CAPS(scpd, MTK_SCPD_FWAIT_SRAM)) {
> + /*
> + * Currently, MTK_SCPD_FWAIT_SRAM is necessary only for
> + * MT7622_POWER_DOMAIN_WB and thus just a trivial setup
> + * is applied here.
> + */
> + usleep_range(12000, 12100);
Does the range really need to be so tight? Would 12000, 13000 also be ok?
> + } else {
> + /* Either wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 1 or 0 */
> + int ret = readl_poll_timeout(ctl_addr, tmp,
> + (tmp & pdn_ack) == 0,
> + MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int scpsys_sram_disable(struct scp_domain *scpd, void __iomem *ctl_addr)
> +{
> + u32 val;
> + u32 pdn_ack = scpd->data->sram_pdn_ack_bits;
> + int tmp;
> +
> + val = readl(ctl_addr) | scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
> + writel(val, ctl_addr);
> +
> + /* Either wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 1 or 0 */
> + return readl_poll_timeout(ctl_addr, tmp,
> + (tmp & pdn_ack) == pdn_ack,
> + MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> +}
> +
> static int scpsys_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> {
> struct scp_domain *scpd = container_of(genpd, struct scp_domain, genpd);
> struct scp *scp = scpd->scp;
> void __iomem *ctl_addr = scp->base + scpd->data->ctl_offs;
> - u32 pdn_ack = scpd->data->sram_pdn_ack_bits;
> u32 val;
> int ret, tmp;
>
> @@ -252,6 +295,7 @@ static int scpsys_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> if (ret)
> goto err_clk;
>
> + /* subsys power on */
> val = readl(ctl_addr);
> val |= PWR_ON_BIT;
> writel(val, ctl_addr);
> @@ -273,24 +317,9 @@ static int scpsys_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> val |= PWR_RST_B_BIT;
> writel(val, ctl_addr);
>
> - val &= ~scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
> - writel(val, ctl_addr);
> -
> - /* Either wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 0 or have a force wait */
> - if (MTK_SCPD_CAPS(scpd, MTK_SCPD_FWAIT_SRAM)) {
> - /*
> - * Currently, MTK_SCPD_FWAIT_SRAM is necessary only for
> - * MT7622_POWER_DOMAIN_WB and thus just a trivial setup is
> - * applied here.
> - */
> - usleep_range(12000, 12100);
> -
> - } else {
> - ret = readl_poll_timeout(ctl_addr, tmp, (tmp & pdn_ack) == 0,
> - MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - goto err_pwr_ack;
> - }
> + ret = scpsys_sram_enable(scpd, ctl_addr);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto err_pwr_ack;
>
> if (scpd->data->bus_prot_mask) {
> ret = mtk_infracfg_clear_bus_protection(scp->infracfg,
> @@ -317,7 +346,6 @@ static int scpsys_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> struct scp_domain *scpd = container_of(genpd, struct scp_domain, genpd);
> struct scp *scp = scpd->scp;
> void __iomem *ctl_addr = scp->base + scpd->data->ctl_offs;
> - u32 pdn_ack = scpd->data->sram_pdn_ack_bits;
> u32 val;
> int ret, tmp;
>
> @@ -329,17 +357,12 @@ static int scpsys_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> goto out;
> }
>
> - val = readl(ctl_addr);
> - val |= scpd->data->sram_pdn_bits;
> - writel(val, ctl_addr);
> -
> - /* wait until SRAM_PDN_ACK all 1 */
> - ret = readl_poll_timeout(ctl_addr, tmp, (tmp & pdn_ack) == pdn_ack,
> - MTK_POLL_DELAY_US, MTK_POLL_TIMEOUT);
> + ret = scpsys_sram_disable(scpd, ctl_addr);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto out;
>
> - val |= PWR_ISO_BIT;
> + /* subsys power off */
> + val = readl(ctl_addr) | PWR_ISO_BIT;
> writel(val, ctl_addr);
>
> val &= ~PWR_RST_B_BIT;
> --
> 2.18.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists