Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752329AbcKHHCz (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 02:02:55 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:55285 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbcKHHCx (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 02:02:53 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/11] drivers: soc: hisi: Add support for Hisilicon Djtag driver To: Arnd Bergmann , References: <1478101374-18778-1-git-send-email-anurup.m@huawei.com> <1478101374-18778-4-git-send-email-anurup.m@huawei.com> <2127881.qmAR1XgW9F@wuerfel> CC: Anurup M , , , , , , , , , , , , From: Tan Xiaojun Message-ID: <58217871.6050609@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:02:09 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2127881.qmAR1XgW9F@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.21.79] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5715 Lines: 190 On 2016/11/7 21:26, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 11:42:46 AM CET Anurup M wrote: >> From: Tan Xiaojun >> >> The Hisilicon Djtag is an independent component which connects >> with some other components in the SoC by Debug Bus. This driver >> can be configured to access the registers of connecting components >> (like L3 cache) during real time debugging. > > The formatting of the text seems odd, please remove the leading spaces. > Sorry for that. We will fix it. >> drivers/soc/Kconfig | 1 + >> drivers/soc/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/soc/hisilicon/Kconfig | 12 + >> drivers/soc/hisilicon/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/soc/hisilicon/djtag.c | 639 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/soc/hisilicon/djtag.h | 38 +++ > > Do you expect other drivers to be added that reference this interface? > If not, or if you are unsure, just put all of it under drivers/perf > so we don't introduce a global API that has only one user. > OK. For now, this suggestion sounds good. >> + >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> + >> +#include > > Never include files from asm-generic directly except from > an architecture specific asm/*.h header file. > > OK. Sorry for that. >> +DEFINE_IDR(djtag_hosts_idr); > > make this static > OK. >> +static void djtag_read32_relaxed(void __iomem *regs_base, u32 off, u32 *value) >> +{ >> + void __iomem *reg_addr = regs_base + off; >> + >> + *value = readl_relaxed(reg_addr); >> +} >> + >> +static void djtag_write32(void __iomem *regs_base, u32 off, u32 val) >> +{ >> + void __iomem *reg_addr = regs_base + off; >> + >> + writel(val, reg_addr); >> +} > > This looks like an odd combination of interfaces. > Why can the reads be "relaxed" when the writes can not? > > Generally speaking, I'd advise to always use non-relaxed accessors > unless there is a strong performance reason, and in that case there > should be a comment explaining the use at each of the callers > of a relaxed accessor. > Yes, it is our mistake. >> + /* ensure the djtag operation is done */ >> + do { >> + djtag_read32_relaxed(regs_base, SC_DJTAG_MSTR_START_EN_EX, &rd); >> + >> + if (!(rd & DJTAG_MSTR_START_EN_EX)) >> + break; >> + >> + udelay(1); >> + } while (timeout--); > > This one is obviously not performance critical at all, so use a non-relaxed > accessor. Same for the other two in this function. > > Are these functions ever called from atomic context? If yes, please document > from what context they can be called, otherwise please consider changing > the udelay calls into sleeping waits. > Yes, this is not reentrant. >> +int hisi_djtag_writel(struct hisi_djtag_client *client, u32 offset, u32 mod_sel, >> + u32 mod_mask, u32 val) >> +{ >> + void __iomem *reg_map = client->host->sysctl_reg_map; >> + unsigned long flags; >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&client->host->lock, flags); >> + ret = client->host->djtag_readwrite(reg_map, offset, mod_sel, mod_mask, >> + true, val, 0, NULL); >> + if (ret) >> + pr_err("djtag_writel: error! ret=%d\n", ret); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&client->host->lock, flags); >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hisi_djtag_writel); > > That would of course imply changing the spinlock to a mutex here as well. > >> +static const struct of_device_id djtag_of_match[] = { >> + /* for hip05(D02) cpu die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip05-cpu-djtag-v1", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v1 }, >> + /* for hip05(D02) io die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip05-io-djtag-v1", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v1 }, >> + /* for hip06(D03) cpu die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-cpu-djtag-v1", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v1 }, >> + /* for hip06(D03) io die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-io-djtag-v2", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v2 }, >> + /* for hip07(D05) cpu die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-cpu-djtag-v2", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v2 }, >> + /* for hip07(D05) io die */ >> + { .compatible = "hisilicon,hip07-io-djtag-v2", >> + .data = (void *)djtag_readwrite_v2 }, >> + {}, >> +}; > > If these are backwards compatible, just mark them as compatible in DT, > e.g. hip06 can use > > compatible = "hisilicon,hip06-cpu-djtag-v1", "hisilicon,hip05-cpu-djtag-v1"; > > so you can tell the difference if you need to, but the driver only has to > list the oldest one here. > > What is the difference between the cpu and io djtag interfaces? > > I think you can also drop the '(void *)'. > OK. We will consider it. Thanks. Xiaojun. >> +static void djtag_register_devices(struct hisi_djtag_host *host) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *node; >> + struct hisi_djtag_client *client; >> + >> + if (!host->of_node) >> + return; >> + >> + for_each_available_child_of_node(host->of_node, node) { >> + if (of_node_test_and_set_flag(node, OF_POPULATED)) >> + continue; >> + client = hisi_djtag_of_register_device(host, node); >> + list_add(&client->next, &host->client_list); >> + } >> +} > > Can you explain your thoughts behind creating a new bus type > and adding the child devices manually rather than using > platform_device structures with of_platform_populate()? > > Do you expect to see other implementations of this bus type > with incompatible bus drivers? > > Arnd > > > . >