| 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: <bb5794e7-44c6-c889-b555-21c531003548@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:39:42 +0200
From: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
To: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@....com>
Cc: khilman@...libre.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, yue.wang@...ogic.com, kishon@...com,
repk@...plefau.lt, maz@...nel.org,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] PCI: amlogic: meson: Add support for G12A
Hi Andrew,
On 11/09/2019 13:36, Andrew Murray wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 01:42:55PM +0000, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Add support for the Amlogic G12A SoC using a separate shared PHY.
>>
>> This adds support for fetching a PHY phandle and call the PHY init,
>> reset and power on/off calls instead of writing in the PHY register or
>> toggling the PHY reset line.
>>
>> The MIPI clock is also made optional since it is used for setting up
>
> Is it worth indicating here that the MIPI clock is *only required* for
> the G12A (or controllers with a shared phy)? It's still required for
> AXG. It's not optional for G12A - it's ignored.
Indeed it's ignored, I'll reword it.
>
>> the PHY reference clock chared with the DSI controller on AXG.
>
> s/chared/shared/
Ack
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c
>> index ab79990798f8..3fadad381762 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/reset.h>
>> #include <linux/resource.h>
>> #include <linux/types.h>
>> +#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
>>
>> #include "pcie-designware.h"
>>
>> @@ -96,12 +97,18 @@ struct meson_pcie_rc_reset {
>> struct reset_control *apb;
>> };
>>
>> +struct meson_pcie_param {
>> + bool has_shared_phy;
>> +};
>> +
>> struct meson_pcie {
>> struct dw_pcie pci;
>> struct meson_pcie_mem_res mem_res;
>> struct meson_pcie_clk_res clk_res;
>> struct meson_pcie_rc_reset mrst;
>> struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
>> + struct phy *phy;
>> + const struct meson_pcie_param *param;
>> };
>>
>> static struct reset_control *meson_pcie_get_reset(struct meson_pcie *mp,
>> @@ -123,10 +130,12 @@ static int meson_pcie_get_resets(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> {
>> struct meson_pcie_rc_reset *mrst = &mp->mrst;
>>
>> - mrst->phy = meson_pcie_get_reset(mp, "phy", PCIE_SHARED_RESET);
>> - if (IS_ERR(mrst->phy))
>> - return PTR_ERR(mrst->phy);
>> - reset_control_deassert(mrst->phy);
>> + if (!mp->param->has_shared_phy) {
>> + mrst->phy = meson_pcie_get_reset(mp, "phy", PCIE_SHARED_RESET);
>> + if (IS_ERR(mrst->phy))
>> + return PTR_ERR(mrst->phy);
>> + reset_control_deassert(mrst->phy);
>> + }
>>
>> mrst->port = meson_pcie_get_reset(mp, "port", PCIE_NORMAL_RESET);
>> if (IS_ERR(mrst->port))
>> @@ -180,6 +189,9 @@ static int meson_pcie_get_mems(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> if (IS_ERR(mp->mem_res.cfg_base))
>> return PTR_ERR(mp->mem_res.cfg_base);
>>
>> + if (mp->param->has_shared_phy)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>
> It may be more consistent if, rather than returning here, you wrapped
> the following 3 lines by the if statement.
ok
>
>> /* Meson SoC has two PCI controllers use same phy register*/
>
> I guess this comment should now be updated to refer to AXG?
Indeed
>
>> mp->mem_res.phy_base = meson_pcie_get_mem_shared(pdev, mp, "phy");
>> if (IS_ERR(mp->mem_res.phy_base))
>> @@ -188,19 +200,33 @@ static int meson_pcie_get_mems(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static void meson_pcie_power_on(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> +static int meson_pcie_power_on(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> {
>> - writel(MESON_PCIE_PHY_POWERUP, mp->mem_res.phy_base);
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (mp->param->has_shared_phy)
>> + ret = phy_power_on(mp->phy);
>
> I haven't seen any phy_[init/exit] calls, should there be any?
There is no _init() needed, but indeed we should still call them even it's
a no-op.
>
>> + else
>> + writel(MESON_PCIE_PHY_POWERUP, mp->mem_res.phy_base);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> -static void meson_pcie_reset(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> +static int meson_pcie_reset(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> {
>> struct meson_pcie_rc_reset *mrst = &mp->mrst;
>> -
>> - reset_control_assert(mrst->phy);
>> - udelay(PCIE_RESET_DELAY);
>> - reset_control_deassert(mrst->phy);
>> - udelay(PCIE_RESET_DELAY);
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (mp->param->has_shared_phy) {
>> + ret = phy_reset(mp->phy);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + } else {
>> + reset_control_assert(mrst->phy);
>> + udelay(PCIE_RESET_DELAY);
>> + reset_control_deassert(mrst->phy);
>> + udelay(PCIE_RESET_DELAY);
>> + }
>>
>> reset_control_assert(mrst->port);
>> reset_control_assert(mrst->apb);
>> @@ -208,6 +234,8 @@ static void meson_pcie_reset(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> reset_control_deassert(mrst->port);
>> reset_control_deassert(mrst->apb);
>> udelay(PCIE_RESET_DELAY);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static inline struct clk *meson_pcie_probe_clock(struct device *dev,
>> @@ -250,9 +278,11 @@ static int meson_pcie_probe_clocks(struct meson_pcie *mp)
>> if (IS_ERR(res->port_clk))
>> return PTR_ERR(res->port_clk);
>>
>> - res->mipi_gate = meson_pcie_probe_clock(dev, "mipi", 0);
>> - if (IS_ERR(res->mipi_gate))
>> - return PTR_ERR(res->mipi_gate);
>> + if (!mp->param->has_shared_phy) {
>> + res->mipi_gate = meson_pcie_probe_clock(dev, "mipi", 0);
>> + if (IS_ERR(res->mipi_gate))
>> + return PTR_ERR(res->mipi_gate);
>> + }
>>
>> res->general_clk = meson_pcie_probe_clock(dev, "general", 0);
>> if (IS_ERR(res->general_clk))
>> @@ -524,6 +554,7 @@ static const struct dw_pcie_ops dw_pcie_ops = {
>>
>> static int meson_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> + const struct meson_pcie_param *match_data;
>> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> struct dw_pcie *pci;
>> struct meson_pcie *mp;
>> @@ -537,6 +568,20 @@ static int meson_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> pci->dev = dev;
>> pci->ops = &dw_pcie_ops;
>>
>> + match_data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>> + if (!match_data) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to get match data\n");
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> + mp->param = match_data;
>> +
>> + if (mp->param->has_shared_phy) {
>> + mp->phy = devm_phy_get(dev, "pcie");
>> + if (IS_ERR(mp->phy)) {
>> + return PTR_ERR(mp->phy);
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> mp->reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_LOW);
>> if (IS_ERR(mp->reset_gpio)) {
>> dev_err(dev, "get reset gpio failed\n");
>> @@ -555,8 +600,17 @@ static int meson_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> - meson_pcie_power_on(mp);
>> - meson_pcie_reset(mp);
>> + ret = meson_pcie_power_on(mp);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "phy power on failed, %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = meson_pcie_reset(mp);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "reset failed, %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> ret = meson_pcie_probe_clocks(mp);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -575,9 +629,22 @@ static int meson_pcie_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static struct meson_pcie_param meson_pcie_axg_param = {
>> + .has_shared_phy = false,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct meson_pcie_param meson_pcie_g12a_param = {
>> + .has_shared_phy = true,
>> +};
>> +
>> static const struct of_device_id meson_pcie_of_match[] = {
>> {
>> .compatible = "amlogic,axg-pcie",
>> + .data = &meson_pcie_axg_param,
>> + },
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "amlogic,g12a-pcie",
>> + .data = &meson_pcie_g12a_param,
>
> Here, we hard-code knowledge about the SOCs regarding if they have shared phys
> or not. I guess the alternative would have been to assume there is a shared
> phy if the DT has a phandle for it. I.e. instead of mp->param->has_shared_phy
> everywhere you could test for mp->phy. Though I guess at least with the
> current approach you guard against bad DTs, this seems OK.
I could split with if(mp->phy) and .needs_mipi_clk, but overall it would
be the same, and I wouldn't know how to react if we forget the PHY in g12a DT
since we wouldn't have the PHY register memory zone.
On G12A, the PHY is mandatory unlike AXG.
And finally this MIPI clock is part of the PHY ref clock, so I think
it's fine to wrap it in the .has_shared_phy knowledge.
Thanks for the review,
Neil
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Murray
>
>> },
>> {},
>> };
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists