[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8139e102-677d-6850-b1c3-7a35e0e36904@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 18:00:32 +0530
From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: <treding@...dia.com>, <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<jonathanh@...dia.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<lpieralisi@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
<mmaddireddy@...dia.com>, <kw@...ux.com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<vidyas@...dia.com>, <sanjayc@...dia.com>, <ksitaraman@...dia.com>,
<ishah@...dia.com>, <bbasu@...dia.com>,
Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 03/10] memory: tegra: add interconnect support for DRAM
scaling in Tegra234
On 28/03/23 16:35, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:31:58AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/03/2023 18:14, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186-emc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186-emc.c
> [...]
>>> @@ -158,6 +260,9 @@ static int tegra186_emc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> if (!emc)
>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, emc);
>>> + emc->dev = &pdev->dev;
>>
>> This patch looks like stiched from two or more patches... emc->dev does
>> not look like new member of emc, thus why do you set in exisitng
>> function in this patch? Why it wasn't needed before?
>
> This looks like it may be leftover from some development. These two
> lines exist in this driver a few lines further down. Either one pair
> should be removed. I don't see why this would need to be moved, so
> probably the above additions can just be dropped.
>
> Thierry
>
Yes, sorry i was left over. Will remove this.
Thank you for catching.
>>> emc->bpmp = tegra_bpmp_get(&pdev->dev);
>>> if (IS_ERR(emc->bpmp))
>>> return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(emc->bpmp), "failed to get BPMP\n");
>>> @@ -236,6 +341,25 @@ static int tegra186_emc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> debugfs_create_file("max_rate", S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, emc->debugfs.root,
>>> emc, &tegra186_emc_debug_max_rate_fops);
>>>
>>> + mc = dev_get_drvdata(emc->dev->parent);
>>> + if (mc && mc->soc->icc_ops) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Initialize the ICC even if BPMP-FW doesn't support 'MRQ_BWMGR_INT'.
>>> + * Use the flag 'mc->bwmgr_mrq_supported' within MC driver and return
>>> + * EINVAL instead of passing the request to BPMP-FW later when the BW
>>> + * request is made by client with 'icc_set_bw()' call.
>>> + */
>>> + err = tegra_emc_interconnect_init(emc);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto put_bpmp;
>>> +
>>> + if (tegra_bpmp_mrq_is_supported(emc->bpmp, MRQ_BWMGR_INT))
>>> + mc->bwmgr_mrq_supported = true;
>>> + else
>>> +
>>
>> Drop blank line.
>>
Ok.
>>> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "MRQ_BWMGR_INT not present\n");
>>
>> And what user is supposed to do with this? Either make it descriptive or
>> drop.
>
> Agreed. I think we can just drop this. If the intention was to provide a
> quick way for people to detect whether BWMGR is available or not, using
> something from sysfs/debugfs would be preferable.
>
> Thierry
Sure, will drop this.
Thank you,
Sumit Gupta
Powered by blists - more mailing lists