Re: [PATCH v5 11/17] media: rzg2l-cru: Add register mapping support

Lad, Prabhakar
2025-04-02T07:35:52Z

Hi Biju,

Thank you for the review.

On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 7:31 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tommaso,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com>
> > Sent: 28 March 2025 17:30
> > Subject: [PATCH v5 11/17] media: rzg2l-cru: Add register mapping support
> >
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> >
> > Prepare for adding support for RZ/G3E and RZ/V2HP SoCs, which have a CRU-IP that is mostly identical
> > to RZ/G2L but with different register offsets and additional registers. Introduce a flexible register
> > mapping mechanism to handle these variations.
> >
> > Define the `rzg2l_cru_info` structure to store register mappings and pass it as part of the OF match
> > data. Update the read/write functions to check out-of-bound accesses and use indexed register offsets
> > from `rzg2l_cru_info`, ensuring compatibility across different SoC variants.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Merciai <tommaso.merciai.xr@bp.renesas.com>
> > ---
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Implemented new rzg2l_cru_write/read() that now are checking out-of-bound
> > accesses as suggested by LPinchart.
> > - Fixed AMnMBxADDRL() and AMnMBxADDRH() as suggested by LPinchart.
> > - Update commit body
> >
> > Changes since v4:
> > - Mark __rzg2l_cru_write_constant/__rzg2l_cru_read_constant
> > as __always_inline
> >
> > .../platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-core.c | 46 ++++++++++++-
> > .../renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-cru-regs.h | 66 ++++++++++---------
> > .../platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-cru.h | 4 ++
> > .../platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-video.c | 58 ++++++++++++++--
> > 4 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-core.c
> > b/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-core.c
> > index eed9d2bd08414..abc2a979833aa 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/renesas/rzg2l-cru/rzg2l-core.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> > #include <media/v4l2-mc.h>
> >
> > #include "rzg2l-cru.h"
> > +#include "rzg2l-cru-regs.h"
> >
> > static inline struct rzg2l_cru_dev *notifier_to_cru(struct v4l2_async_notifier *n) { @@ -269,6
> > +270,9 @@ static int rzg2l_cru_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > cru->dev = dev;
> > cru->info = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > + if (!cru->info)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL,
> > + "Failed to get OF match data\n");
> >
> > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > if (irq < 0)
> > @@ -317,8 +321,48 @@ static void rzg2l_cru_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > rzg2l_cru_dma_unregister(cru);
> > }
> >
> > +static const u16 rzg2l_cru_regs[] = {
> > + [CRUnCTRL] = 0x0,
> > + [CRUnIE] = 0x4,
> > + [CRUnINTS] = 0x8,
> > + [CRUnRST] = 0xc,
> > + [AMnMB1ADDRL] = 0x100,
> > + [AMnMB1ADDRH] = 0x104,
> > + [AMnMB2ADDRL] = 0x108,
> > + [AMnMB2ADDRH] = 0x10c,
> > + [AMnMB3ADDRL] = 0x110,
> > + [AMnMB3ADDRH] = 0x114,
> > + [AMnMB4ADDRL] = 0x118,
> > + [AMnMB4ADDRH] = 0x11c,
> > + [AMnMB5ADDRL] = 0x120,
> > + [AMnMB5ADDRH] = 0x124,
> > + [AMnMB6ADDRL] = 0x128,
> > + [AMnMB6ADDRH] = 0x12c,
> > + [AMnMB7ADDRL] = 0x130,
> > + [AMnMB7ADDRH] = 0x134,
> > + [AMnMB8ADDRL] = 0x138,
> > + [AMnMB8ADDRH] = 0x13c,
> > + [AMnMBVALID] = 0x148,
> > + [AMnMBS] = 0x14c,
> > + [AMnAXIATTR] = 0x158,
> > + [AMnFIFOPNTR] = 0x168,
> > + [AMnAXISTP] = 0x174,
> > + [AMnAXISTPACK] = 0x178,
> > + [ICnEN] = 0x200,
> > + [ICnMC] = 0x208,
> > + [ICnMS] = 0x254,
> > + [ICnDMR] = 0x26c,
> > +};
>
> Do we need enum, can't we use struct instead with all these entries instead?
>
What benefit do you foresee when using struct? With the current
approach being used a minimal diff is generated when switched to
struct there will be lots of changes.

> > +
> > +static const struct rzg2l_cru_info rzgl2_cru_info = {
> > + .regs = rzg2l_cru_regs,
> > +};
>
> For a single entry, why you need struct?
>
This struct will grow further, see the later patches.

Cheers,
Prabhakar