From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, geert+renesas@glider.be,
krzk@kernel.org, javier@osg.samsung.com, kgene@kernel.org,
thomas.ab@samsung.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: refactoring of mach-exynos to enable chipid driver
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:56:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8265239.AocGIQzL5f@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1478347427-28409-3-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
On Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:33:47 PM CET Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> This patch enables chipid driver for ARCH_EXYNOS and refactors
> machine code for using chipid driver for identification of
> SoC ID and SoC rev.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 92 ----------------------------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 31 ----------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 +--
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h | 21 -------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 22 ++++---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 41 ++++++++-----
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c | 14 -----
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 -
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h | 2 -
> 10 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 189 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
Nice code removal!
> -
> static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
> {
> debug_ll_io_init();
> -
> - of_scan_flat_dt(exynos_fdt_map_chipid, NULL);
> -
> - /* detect cpu id and rev. */
> - s5p_init_cpu(S5P_VA_CHIPID);
> }
This is now the default for .map_io, so you can remove the rest of the
function as well and do
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index 757fc11de30d..808872981f45 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -234,7 +234,6 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS_DT, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)")
.l2c_aux_val = 0x3c400001,
.l2c_aux_mask = 0xc20fffff,
.smp = smp_ops(exynos_smp_ops),
- .map_io = exynos_init_io,
.init_early = exynos_firmware_init,
.init_irq = exynos_init_irq,
.init_machine = exynos_dt_machine_init,
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> index fd6da54..a9f8504e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
> sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
> writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> - if (soc_is_exynos3250()) {
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")) {
> flush_cache_all();
> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
I'd rather not see a proliferation of many such checks. Please try
to rework it to have fewer checks, e.g. by having a separate instance
of "struct firmware_ops" for each incompatible variant and making the
decision once.
>
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev11[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "11", },
> + { },
> +};
> +
> static void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg_base(void)
> {
> - if (soc_is_exynos4210() && samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
> + if (soc_device_match(exynos4210_rev11))
> return pmu_base_addr + S5P_INFORM5;
> return sysram_base_addr;
> }
> @@ -182,9 +187,10 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu)
> boot_reg = cpu_boot_reg_base();
> if (!boot_reg)
> return IOMEM_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412"))
> boot_reg += 4*cpu;
> - else if (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800())
> + else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5420") ||
> + of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5800"))
> boot_reg += 4;
> return boot_reg;
> }
Same here, it would be nicer to rework the code to compute the address
once while called from a place where you already know this information
and then store the register address.
>
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev11[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "11", },
> + { },
> +};
> +
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev10[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "10", },
> + { },
> +};
Please use a single 'soc_device_attribute' table and make use
of the .data field to encode the difference.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: refactoring of mach-exynos to enable chipid driver
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 09:56:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8265239.AocGIQzL5f@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1478347427-28409-3-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
On Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:33:47 PM CET Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> This patch enables chipid driver for ARCH_EXYNOS and refactors
> machine code for using chipid driver for identification of
> SoC ID and SoC rev.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 92 ----------------------------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 31 ----------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 +--
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h | 21 -------
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 22 ++++---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 41 ++++++++-----
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c | 14 -----
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 -
> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h | 2 -
> 10 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 189 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h
Nice code removal!
> -
> static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
> {
> debug_ll_io_init();
> -
> - of_scan_flat_dt(exynos_fdt_map_chipid, NULL);
> -
> - /* detect cpu id and rev. */
> - s5p_init_cpu(S5P_VA_CHIPID);
> }
This is now the default for .map_io, so you can remove the rest of the
function as well and do
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index 757fc11de30d..808872981f45 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -234,7 +234,6 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(EXYNOS_DT, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree)")
.l2c_aux_val = 0x3c400001,
.l2c_aux_mask = 0xc20fffff,
.smp = smp_ops(exynos_smp_ops),
- .map_io = exynos_init_io,
.init_early = exynos_firmware_init,
.init_irq = exynos_init_irq,
.init_machine = exynos_dt_machine_init,
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> index fd6da54..a9f8504e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
> writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
> sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
> writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
> - if (soc_is_exynos3250()) {
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")) {
> flush_cache_all();
> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
> SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
I'd rather not see a proliferation of many such checks. Please try
to rework it to have fewer checks, e.g. by having a separate instance
of "struct firmware_ops" for each incompatible variant and making the
decision once.
>
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev11[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "11", },
> + { },
> +};
> +
> static void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg_base(void)
> {
> - if (soc_is_exynos4210() && samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1)
> + if (soc_device_match(exynos4210_rev11))
> return pmu_base_addr + S5P_INFORM5;
> return sysram_base_addr;
> }
> @@ -182,9 +187,10 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu)
> boot_reg = cpu_boot_reg_base();
> if (!boot_reg)
> return IOMEM_ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412"))
> boot_reg += 4*cpu;
> - else if (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800())
> + else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5420") ||
> + of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5800"))
> boot_reg += 4;
> return boot_reg;
> }
Same here, it would be nicer to rework the code to compute the address
once while called from a place where you already know this information
and then store the register address.
>
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev11[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "11", },
> + { },
> +};
> +
> +static struct soc_device_attribute exynos4210_rev10[] = {
> + { .soc_id = "EXYNOS4210", .revision = "10", },
> + { },
> +};
Please use a single 'soc_device_attribute' table and make use
of the .data field to encode the difference.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-07 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-05 12:03 [PATCH v7 0/2] Introducing Exynos ChipId driver Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-05 12:03 ` Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] soc: samsung: add exynos chipid driver support Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-05 12:03 ` Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-07 7:35 ` Marek Szyprowski
2016-11-07 7:35 ` Marek Szyprowski
2016-11-07 8:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-07 8:32 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-08 3:26 ` pankaj.dubey
2016-11-08 3:26 ` pankaj.dubey
2016-11-07 8:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-07 8:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-05 12:03 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] ARM: EXYNOS: refactoring of mach-exynos to enable chipid driver Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-05 12:03 ` Pankaj Dubey
2016-11-07 8:56 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2016-11-07 8:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-11-07 18:24 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-11-07 18:24 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8265239.AocGIQzL5f@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=javier@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=kgene@kernel.org \
--cc=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=pankaj.dubey@samsung.com \
--cc=thomas.ab@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.