On 12/3/17 10:52 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 04:49:01PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
+int sdw_master_read_prop(struct sdw_bus *bus) +{
- struct sdw_master_prop *prop = &bus->prop;
- struct fwnode_handle *link;
- unsigned int count = 0;
- char name[32];
- int nval, i;
- device_property_read_u32(bus->dev,
"mipi-sdw-sw-interface-revision", &prop->revision);- device_property_read_u32(bus->dev, "mipi-sdw-master-count", &count);
- /* Find link handle */
- snprintf(name, sizeof(name),
"mipi-sdw-link-%d-subproperties", bus->link_id);if you follow the DisCo spec, this property is at the controller level, isn't there a confusion between controller/master here, and consequently are we reading the same things multiple times or using the wrong bus parameter?
Not sure I follow, this one is for a specific master ie a specfic link. we need to read respective master thru mipi-sdw-link-N-subproperties
If I look at intel_probe(), there is a clear reference to a link_id, and then you set the pointer to this read_prop which reads the number of links, which looks like the wrong order. You can't assign a link ID before knowing how many links there are - or you may be unable to detect issues.
Sorry I dont follow this part. FWIW, when master driver is enumerated it know the link_id value and then sets the read_prop and then these are read.
Here we are reading "a specific link property" with the knowledge of link_id value...
the sdw_master-count is at the controller level, and the linkid has to be < master_count.
The fact that you are reading this property for each master instance is the problem.
- fwnode_property_read_u32(link, "mipi-sdw-default-frame-rate",
&prop->default_frame_rate);- fwnode_property_read_u32(link, "mipi-sdw-default-frame-row-size",
&prop->default_row);- fwnode_property_read_u32(link, "mipi-sdw-default-frame-col-size",
This is fine, just wondering if we should warnings if the values make no sense, e.g. the DisCo spec states in Note1 page 15 that the values are interrelated.
I think we discussed in past and that would kind of form the firmware validation. We check all the values to see if firmware gave us sane values..
- /*
* Based on each DPn port, get source and sink dpn properties.* Also, some ports can operate as both source or sink.*/- /* Allocate memory for set bits in port lists */
- nval = hweight32(prop->source_ports);
- num_of_ports += nval;
this and...
- prop->src_dpn_prop = devm_kcalloc(&slave->dev, nval,
sizeof(*prop->src_dpn_prop), GFP_KERNEL);- if (!prop->src_dpn_prop)
return -ENOMEM;- /* Read dpn properties for source port(s) */
- sdw_slave_read_dpn(slave, prop->src_dpn_prop, nval,
prop->source_ports, "source");- nval = hweight32(prop->sink_ports);
- num_of_ports += nval;
... this is no longer needed since...
- prop->sink_dpn_prop = devm_kcalloc(&slave->dev, nval,
sizeof(*prop->sink_dpn_prop), GFP_KERNEL);- if (!prop->sink_dpn_prop)
return -ENOMEM;- /* Read dpn properties for sink port(s) */
- sdw_slave_read_dpn(slave, prop->sink_dpn_prop, nval,
prop->sink_ports, "sink");- /* some ports are bidirectional so check total ports by ORing */
- nval = prop->source_ports | prop->sink_ports;
- num_of_ports = hweight32(nval) + 1; /* add 1 for DP0 */
... you reassign the value here. That was one earlier feedback from me but you left the variable incrementation in the code.
This seems to have artifact of merge conflicts as I clearly remember removing this, thanks for pointing will remove these..
+/**
- enum sdw_clk_stop_mode - Clock Stop modes
- @SDW_CLK_STOP_MODE0: Slave can continue operation seamlessly on clock
- restart
- @SDW_CLK_STOP_MODE1: Slave may have entered a deeper power-saving mode,
- not capable of continuing operation seamlessly when the clock restarts
- */
+enum sdw_clk_stop_mode {
- SDW_CLK_STOP_MODE0 = 1,
- SDW_CLK_STOP_MODE1 = 2,
why not 0 and 1?
why not 1 and 2 :D
I think it was to ensure we have a non zero value, but am not sure, will check though..
I don't think the value matter and you should use the same conventions for such enums.