[RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Omar Ramirez Luna]

Fix the mailbox support detection for OMAP3630, 3530/25 and 2430.

Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@ti.com>
---
- Testing was made under 3630 and 3430 boards.
- Given that 2430 uses similar initialization than OMAP3, changes
  to handle this case was added to the patch.
- HWMOD adaptation hopefully should solve this mess, but as of now
  mailbox should work as before at least.

 arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c |   12 ++++++++----
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
index 42dbfa4..26d6fb0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
@@ -394,15 +394,19 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	if (false)
 		;
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
-	else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3)
+	else if (omap3_has_iva()) {
 		list = omap3_mboxes;
 
 		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
 	}
 #endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420)
-	else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
+	else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
+		list = omap2_mboxes;
+
+		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
+	} else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
 		list = omap2_mboxes;
 
 		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
-- 
1.7.1

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Aguirre, Sergio]

Hi Omar,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Omar Ramirez Luna
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:22 PM
> To: Tony Lindgren; Hiroshi DOYU; Felipe Contreras; Anna, Suman; linux-
> omap@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Ramirez Luna, Omar
> Subject: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips
> 
> Fix the mailbox support detection for OMAP3630, 3530/25 and 2430.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@ti.com>
> ---
> - Testing was made under 3630 and 3430 boards.
> - Given that 2430 uses similar initialization than OMAP3, changes
>   to handle this case was added to the patch.
> - HWMOD adaptation hopefully should solve this mess, but as of now
>   mailbox should work as before at least.
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c |   12 ++++++++----
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> index 42dbfa4..26d6fb0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> @@ -394,15 +394,19 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> 
>  	if (false)
>  		;
> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
> -	else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3)
> +	else if (omap3_has_iva()) {
>  		list = omap3_mboxes;
> 
>  		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
>  	}
>  #endif
> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2420)
> -	else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
> +	else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
> +		list = omap2_mboxes;
> +
> +		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
> +	} else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {

Isn't both 2430 and 2420 doing the exact same?

If yes, How about just doing:

	else if (cpu_is_omap2430() || cpu_is_omap2420()) {

>  		list = omap2_mboxes;
> 
>  		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");

Regards,
Sergio

> --
> 1.7.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Ramirez Luna, Omar]

Hi Sergio,

Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
> Hi Omar,
>> 
...
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
>> +	else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
>> +		list = omap2_mboxes;
>> +
>> +		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
>> +	} else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
> 
> Isn't both 2430 and 2420 doing the exact same?
> 

Code is not the same, it is 2 line which apply for both but couldn't find an easy way of making them share the request for dsp mailbox without changing more code, perhaps a macro to detect if omap2 and then a nested if for the 2420 case, but since HWMOD should handle it better, I left it as is.

As the code previous to reorganization treated 2430 has a user with one single mailbox (same as omap3) I added the code to at least detect it, 2420 has 2 mailboxes one for iva and other for the dsp. From the diagrams for OMAP2430[1] and OMAP2420[2], it made sense as in the later both dsp and iva seem to be separated entities; unfortunately I don't have the hardware to test on any of them.

The patched code should look like:

#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
        else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
                list = omap2_mboxes;

                list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
        } else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
                list = omap2_mboxes;

                list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
                list[1]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "iva");
        }
#endif

Regards,

Omar

---

[1] http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?contentId=4672&navigationId=12609&templateId=6123
[2] http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?templateId=6123&navigationId=11990&contentId=4671

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Aguirre, Sergio]

Hi Omar,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ramirez Luna, Omar
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:12 AM
> To: Aguirre, Sergio; Tony Lindgren; Hiroshi DOYU; Felipe Contreras; Anna,
> Suman; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported
> chips
> 
> Hi Sergio,
> 
> Aguirre, Sergio wrote:
> > Hi Omar,
> >>
> ...
> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
> >> +	else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
> >> +		list = omap2_mboxes;
> >> +
> >> +		list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
> >> +	} else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
> >
> > Isn't both 2430 and 2420 doing the exact same?
> >
> 
> Code is not the same, it is 2 line which apply for both but couldn't find
> an easy way of making them share the request for dsp mailbox without
> changing more code, perhaps a macro to detect if omap2 and then a nested
> if for the 2420 case, but since HWMOD should handle it better, I left it
> as is.
> 
> As the code previous to reorganization treated 2430 has a user with one
> single mailbox (same as omap3) I added the code to at least detect it,
> 2420 has 2 mailboxes one for iva and other for the dsp. From the diagrams
> for OMAP2430[1] and OMAP2420[2], it made sense as in the later both dsp
> and iva seem to be separated entities; unfortunately I don't have the
> hardware to test on any of them.
> 
> The patched code should look like:
> 
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
>         else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) {
>                 list = omap2_mboxes;
> 
>                 list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
>         } else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) {
>                 list = omap2_mboxes;
> 
>                 list[0]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "dsp");
>                 list[1]->irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "iva");
>         }
> #endif

Ok, I understand.

I guess I missed to see the second element in the list for acquiring IVA irq.

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,
Sergio

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Omar
> 
> ---
> 
> [1]
> http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?contentId=467
> 2&navigationId=12609&templateId=6123
> [2]
> http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wtbu/wtbuproductcontent.tsp?templateId=61
> 23&navigationId=11990&contentId=4671

Re: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Felipe Contreras]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ramirez Luna, Omar <omar.ramirez@ti.com> wrote:
> Code is not the same, it is 2 line which apply for both but couldn't find an easy way of making them share the request for dsp mailbox without changing more code, perhaps a macro to detect if omap2 and then a nested if for the 2420 case, but since HWMOD should handle it better, I left it as is.

I sent some patches to migrate to hwmod, at least it was working on
OMAP3, somebody would need to fill the values for OMAP2. Would you
like me to rebase and send them again?

-- 
Felipe Contreras

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Ramirez Luna, Omar]

Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ramirez Luna, Omar
> <omar.ramirez@ti.com> wrote: 
>> Code is not the same, it is 2 line which apply for both but couldn't
>> find an easy way of making them share the request for dsp mailbox
>> without changing more code, perhaps a macro to detect if omap2 and
>> then a nested if for the 2420 case, but since HWMOD should handle it
>> better, I left it as is.    
> 
> I sent some patches to migrate to hwmod, at least it was working on
> OMAP3, somebody would need to fill the values for OMAP2. Would you
> like me to rebase and send them again?  
> 

Yes, I just found them, I can take care of the rebase if you don't beat me to it.

Regards,

Omar

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Ramirez Luna, Omar]

Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
> Fix the mailbox support detection for OMAP3630, 3530/25 and 2430.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@ti.com>
> ---
> - Testing was made under 3630 and 3430 boards.
> - Given that 2430 uses similar initialization than OMAP3, changes
>   to handle this case was added to the patch.
> - HWMOD adaptation hopefully should solve this mess, but as of now
>   mailbox should work as before at least.
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c |   12 ++++++++----
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c index 42dbfa4..26d6fb0 100644 ---
> a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> @@ -394,15 +394,19 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev) 
> 
>  	if (false)
>  		;
> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
> -	else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3)
> +	else if (omap3_has_iva()) {

Hmm, seems omap3_has_ ##feat are only available for built-in and not module configurations, this patch is not so good after all since it throws:

ERROR: "omap3_features" [arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox_mach.ko] undefined!

Regards,

Omar

Re: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Kevin Hilman]

"Ramirez Luna, Omar" <omar.ramirez@ti.com> writes:

> Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
>> Fix the mailbox support detection for OMAP3630, 3530/25 and 2430.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@ti.com>
>> ---
>> - Testing was made under 3630 and 3430 boards.
>> - Given that 2430 uses similar initialization than OMAP3, changes
>>   to handle this case was added to the patch.
>> - HWMOD adaptation hopefully should solve this mess, but as of now
>>   mailbox should work as before at least.
>> 
>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c |   12 ++++++++----
>>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c index 42dbfa4..26d6fb0 100644 ---
>> a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
>> @@ -394,15 +394,19 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev) 
>> 
>>  	if (false)
>>  		;
>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
>> -	else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3)
>> +	else if (omap3_has_iva()) {
>
> Hmm, seems omap3_has_ ##feat are only available for built-in and not module configurations, this patch is not so good after all since it throws:
>
> ERROR: "omap3_features" [arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox_mach.ko] undefined!

Well, feature detection certainly should be available to modules.

How about proposing a simple fix for this.  Something like the following
(untested) should work, since the individual omap3_has_* checks are
static inlines.

Kevin


diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
index 9a879f9..a8c6d19 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ static struct omap_chip_id omap_chip;
 static unsigned int omap_revision;
 
 u32 omap3_features;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(omap3_features);
 
 unsigned int omap_rev(void)
 {

RE: [RFC] omap: mailbox: fix detection for previously supported chips

[Ramirez Luna, Omar]

Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Ramirez Luna, Omar" <omar.ramirez@ti.com> writes:
> 
>> Ramirez Luna, Omar wrote:
>>> Fix the mailbox support detection for OMAP3630, 3530/25 and 2430.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@ti.com>
>>> ---
>>> - Testing was made under 3630 and 3430 boards.
>>> - Given that 2430 uses similar initialization than OMAP3, changes
>>>   to handle this case was added to the patch.
>>> - HWMOD adaptation hopefully should solve this mess, but as of now
>>>   mailbox should work as before at least.
>>> 
>>>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c |   12 ++++++++----
>>>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
>>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c index 42dbfa4..26d6fb0 100644 ---
>>> a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
>>> @@ -394,15 +394,19 @@ static int __devinit omap2_mbox_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev) 
>>> 
>>>  	if (false)
>>>  		;
>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3430)
>>> -	else if (cpu_is_omap3430()) {
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3)
>>> +	else if (omap3_has_iva()) {
>> 
>> Hmm, seems omap3_has_ ##feat are only available for built-in and not
>> module configurations, this patch is not so good after all since it
>> throws:  
>> 
>> ERROR: "omap3_features" [arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox_mach.ko]
>> undefined! 
> 
> Well, feature detection certainly should be available to modules.
> 
> How about proposing a simple fix for this.  Something like the
> following (untested) should work, since the individual omap3_has_*
> checks are static inlines. 

Ok great, I wasn't sure if exporting this variable as a symbol was desired. Will try and resend.

Regards,

Omar