[PATCH 01/10] soc: qcom: Separate kryo l2 accessors from PMU driver

[sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)]

On 12/12, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 02:31:28PM +0200, Ilia Lin wrote:
> > + * accesses, and system registers with respect to device memory
> > + */
> > +void set_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg, u64 val)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	mb();
> 
> We didn't need this for the PMU driver, so it's unfortuante that it now
> has to pay the cost.
> 
> Can we please factor this mb() into the callers that need it?

+1

> 
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&l2_access_lock, flags);
> > +	write_sysreg_s(reg, L2CPUSRSELR_EL1);
> > +	isb();
> > +	write_sysreg_s(val, L2CPUSRDR_EL1);
> > +	isb();
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&l2_access_lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(set_l2_indirect_reg);
> 
> [...]
> 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM
> > +void set_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr, u64 val);
> > +u64 get_l2_indirect_reg(u64 reg_addr);
> > +#else
> > +static inline void set_l2_indirect_reg(u32 reg_addr, u32 val) {}
> > +static inline u32 get_l2_indirect_reg(u32 reg_addr)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +#endif
> 
> Are there any drivers that will bne built for !CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM that
> reference this?
> 
> It might be better to not have the stub versions, so that we get a
> build-error if they are erroneously used.
> 

Does that approach make COMPILE_TEST break?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project