On 09/03/2021 16:10, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &bus->m_rt_list, bus_node) { @@ -473,8 +475,13 @@ static int qcom_swrm_compute_params(struct sdw_bus *bus) } list_for_each_entry(s_rt, &m_rt->slave_rt_list, m_rt_node) { + slave = s_rt->slave; list_for_each_entry(p_rt, &s_rt->port_list, port_node) { - pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[i]; + m_port = slave->m_port_map[_rtp->num - 1]; + if (m_port) + pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[m_port - 1]; + else + pcfg = &ctrl->pconfig[i];
Maybe add a short comment on port allocation, I had to think a bit to figure out why the -1 was required on both peripheral and manager but it is not below [1]
I agree, will add some comment here to explain the offsets correctly!
--srini
p_rt->transport_params.port_num = p_rt->num; p_rt->transport_params.sample_interval = pcfg->si + 1; @@ -535,8 +542,10 @@ static int qcom_swrm_stream_alloc_ports(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl, struct sdw_master_runtime *m_rt; struct sdw_slave_runtime *s_rt; struct sdw_port_runtime *p_rt; + struct sdw_slave *slave; unsigned long *port_mask; int i, maxport, pn, nports = 0, ret = 0; + unsigned int m_port; mutex_lock(&ctrl->port_lock); list_for_each_entry(m_rt, &stream->master_list, stream_node) { @@ -549,9 +558,15 @@ static int qcom_swrm_stream_alloc_ports(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl, } list_for_each_entry(s_rt, &m_rt->slave_rt_list, m_rt_node) { + slave = s_rt->slave; list_for_each_entry(p_rt, &s_rt->port_list, port_node) { + m_port = slave->m_port_map[p_rt->num - 1]; /* Port numbers start from 1 - 14*/ - pn = find_first_zero_bit(port_mask, maxport); + if (m_port) + pn = m_port; + else + pn = find_first_zero_bit(port_mask, maxport);
[1]
if (pn > (maxport)) { dev_err(ctrl->dev, "All ports busy\n"); ret = -EBUSY;