| 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: <1560936643.2158.15.camel@mtksdaap41>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:30:43 +0800
From: Weiyi Lu <weiyi.lu@...iatek.com>
To: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...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, 2019-03-19 at 20:07 +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> 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?
>
I think Sean could give you a more accurate answer.
Hi Sean, would you mind answering this question?
> > + } 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