On 29 April 2015 at 21:13, Maxime Ripard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 08:04:03PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> The claim function assigns sram to cpu which when called from the emac
>> driver causes exactly the issue the call is supposed to prevent: emac
>> does not work because it does not have sram available.
>>
>> Add additional parameter to the sunxi_sram_claim to determine if the
>> sram is claimed for cpu or device.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/allwinner/sun4i-emac.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c | 11 ++++++++---
>> include/linux/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.h | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/allwinner/sun4i-emac.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/allwinner/sun4i-emac.c
>> index 0d309a0..11e8dee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/allwinner/sun4i-emac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/allwinner/sun4i-emac.c
>> @@ -859,7 +859,7 @@ static int emac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> clk_prepare_enable(db->clk);
>>
>> - ret = sunxi_sram_claim(SUNXI_SRAM_EMAC, "emac");
>> + ret = sunxi_sram_claim(SUNXI_SRAM_EMAC, "emac", 1);
>
> This extra argument is completely redundant with the second one.
Or the second one is completely redundant with the first one except
for the one bit which is specified in the third argument.
>
>> if (ret)
>> dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't map SRAM to device\n");
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c b/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c
>> index 3d03e89..6e73f38 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/sunxi/sunxi_sram.c
>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static const struct file_operations sunxi_sram_fops = {
>> .release = single_release,
>> };
>>
>> -int sunxi_sram_claim(enum sunxi_sram_type type, const char *function)
>> +int sunxi_sram_claim(enum sunxi_sram_type type, const char *function, int
>> device)
>> {
>> struct sunxi_sram_desc *sram;
>> struct sunxi_sram_func *func;
>> @@ -135,14 +135,19 @@ int sunxi_sram_claim(enum sunxi_sram_type type, const
>> char *function)
>>
>> sram->claimed = true;
>> spin_unlock(&sram_lock);
>> - dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Claiming sram %s.\n", sram->name );
>> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Claiming sram %s for %s.\n", sram->name,
>> + device ? "device" : "cpu");
>>
>> for (func = sram->func; func->func; func++) {
>> if (strcmp(function, func->func))
>> continue;
>>
>
> Ok, so, let's take and example with the EMAC SRAM.
>
> sram->offset = 4
> sram->width = 1
>
> func->val = 1
>
>> val = readl(base + sram->reg);
>
> Let's say that val = 0xffffffff.
>
>> - val &= ~GENMASK(sram->offset + sram->width,
>> + if (device)
>> + val |= GENMASK(sram->offset + sram->width,
>> + sram->offset);
>
> val |= 0x100
>
> => 0xffffffff
Yes, it just duplicates the missing shift.
Either way, I'm sure you can easily produce the 1-line fixup.
Thanks
Michal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
