[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6381bb3-70ae-4aa5-83a0-1e226a5efdfd@bootlin.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:56:24 +0100
From: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Christopher Cordahi <christophercordahi@...ometrics.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/10] memory: ti-aemif: Create
aemif_check_cs_timings()
Hi Krzysztof,
On 11/21/24 11:28 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 15/11/2024 14:26, Bastien Curutchet wrote:
>> aemif_calc_rate() check the validity of a new computed timing against a
>> 'max' value given as input. This isn't convenient if we want to check
>> the CS timing configuration somewhere else in the code.
>>
>> Wrap the verification of all the chip select's timing configuration into a
>> single function to ease its exportation in upcoming patches.
>> Remove the 'max' input from aemif_calc_rate() as it's no longer used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bastien Curutchet <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c b/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
>> index aec6d6464efa..5c1c6f95185f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/ti-aemif.c
>> @@ -132,18 +132,48 @@ struct aemif_device {
>> struct aemif_cs_data cs_data[NUM_CS];
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * aemif_check_cs_timings - Check the validity of a CS timing configuration.
>> + * @timings: timings configuration
>> + *
>> + * @return: 0 if the timing configuration is valid, negative error number otherwise.
>> + */
>> +static int aemif_check_cs_timings(struct aemif_cs_timings *timings)
>> +{
>> + if (timings->ta > TA_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->rhold > RHOLD_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->rstrobe > RSTROBE_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->rsetup > RSETUP_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->whold > WHOLD_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->wstrobe > WSTROBE_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (timings->wsetup > WSETUP_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * aemif_calc_rate - calculate timing data.
>> * @pdev: platform device to calculate for
>> * @wanted: The cycle time needed in nanoseconds.
>> * @clk: The input clock rate in kHz.
>> - * @max: The maximum divider value that can be programmed.
>> *
>> * On success, returns the calculated timing value minus 1 for easy
>> * programming into AEMIF timing registers, else negative errno.
>> */
>> -static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted,
>> - unsigned long clk, int max)
>> +static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted, unsigned long clk)
>> {
>> int result;
>>
>> @@ -156,10 +186,6 @@ static int aemif_calc_rate(struct platform_device *pdev, int wanted,
>> if (result < 0)
>> result = 0;
>>
>> - /* ... But configuring tighter timings is not an option. */
>> - else if (result > max)
>> - result = -EINVAL;
>> -
>> return result;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -249,7 +275,6 @@ static int of_aemif_parse_abus_config(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> struct aemif_device *aemif = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>> unsigned long clk_rate = aemif->clk_rate;
>> struct aemif_cs_data *data;
>> - int ret;
>> u32 cs;
>> u32 val;
>>
>> @@ -275,68 +300,34 @@ static int of_aemif_parse_abus_config(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> aemif_get_hw_params(pdev, aemif->num_cs++);
>>
>> /* override the values from device node */
>> - if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cs-min-turnaround-ns", &val)) {
>> - ret = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, val, clk_rate, TA_MAX);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - return ret;
>> -
>> - data->timings.ta = ret;
>> - }
>> + if (!of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,cs-min-turnaround-ns", &val))
>> + data->timings.ta = aemif_calc_rate(pdev, val, clk_rate);
>>
>
> You just changed these lines in patch #1. Basically this is partial
> revert of #1.
>
IMHO this isn't a partial revert of patch #1. Patch #1 moved the call of
aemif_calc_rate() from aemif_config_abus() to here. Then, this patch
removes the check of the aemif_calc_rate() as it no longer returns
negative values. Maybe I should change the aemif_calc_rate() return type
to u32 by the way.
Best regards,
Bastien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists