All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
	vkoul@kernel.org
Cc: yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com, sanyog.r.kale@intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] soundwire: qcom: add auto enumeration support
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:33:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4721dd27-c8ce-f988-3c10-794841390656@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c551b23-7ed4-59d7-72c2-284bdf8584f1@linux.intel.com>



On 26/02/2021 17:44, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
>> +static int qcom_swrm_enumerate(struct sdw_bus *bus)
>> +{
>> +    struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl = to_qcom_sdw(bus);
>> +    struct sdw_slave *slave, *_s;
>> +    struct sdw_slave_id id;
>> +    u32 val1, val2;
>> +    u64 addr;
>> +    int i;
>> +    char *buf1 = (char *)&val1, *buf2 = (char *)&val2;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 1; i < (SDW_MAX_DEVICES + 1); i++) {
> 
> I don't understand the (SDW_MAX_DEVICES + 1)?
If you mean +1 then probably we can add <= instead of just < to make it 
look like other parts of code in bus.c

for (i = 1; i <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; i++)

> 
> 
>> +        /*SCP_Devid5 - Devid 4*/
>> +        ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_1(i), &val1);
>> +
>> +        /*SCP_Devid3 - DevId 2 Devid 1 Devid 0*/
>> +        ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_2(i), &val2);
> 
> Do you mind explaining a bit what happens here?
> Does the hardware issue commands to read all DevID registers and set the 
> device number automagically?

exactly the hardware assigns device numbers to slaves automatically, and 
the devnum can be figured out by the controller driver by reading 
SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_1/2 registers!

> If yes, then in SoundWire parlance the enumeration is complete. What you 
> are doing below is no longer part of the enumeration.

yes, enumeration is complete by the hardware, however the controller 
driver need to know the dev number assigned by the hardware, this 
routine is doing that!
> 
> 
>> +
>> +        if (!val1 && !val2)
>> +            break;
>> +
>> +        addr = buf2[1] | (buf2[0] << 8) | (buf1[3] << 16) |
>> +            ((u64)buf1[2] << 24) | ((u64)buf1[1] << 32) |
>> +            ((u64)buf1[0] << 40);
>> +
>> +        sdw_extract_slave_id(bus, addr, &id);
>> +        /* Now compare with entries */
>> +        list_for_each_entry_safe(slave, _s, &bus->slaves, node) {
>> +            if (sdw_compare_devid(slave, id) == 0) {
>> +                u32 status = qcom_swrm_get_n_device_status(ctrl, i);
>> +                if (status == SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED) {
>> +                    slave->dev_num = i;
>> +                    mutex_lock(&bus->bus_lock);
>> +                    set_bit(i, bus->assigned);
>> +                    mutex_unlock(&bus->bus_lock);
>> +
>> +                }
> 
> And that part is strange as well. The bus->assigned bit should be set 
> even if the Slave is not in the list provided by platform firmware. It's 
> really tracking the state of the hardware, and it should not be 
> influenced by what software knows to manage.

Am not 100% sure If I understand the concern here, but In normal (non 
auto enum) cases this bit is set by the bus code while its doing 
enumeration to assign a dev number from the assigned bitmap!

However in this case where auto enumeration happens it makes sense to 
set this here with matching dev number!

AFAIU from code, each bit in this bitmap corresponds to slave dev number!


> 
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    complete(&ctrl->enumeration);
> 
> you have init_completion() and complete() in this patch, but no 
> wait_for_completion(), so that should be added in a later patch, no?

make sense, will move that to other patch!

--srini
> 
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static irqreturn_t qcom_swrm_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>   {
>>       struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *swrm = dev_id;
>> -    u32 value, intr_sts, intr_sts_masked;
>> +    u32 value, intr_sts, intr_sts_masked, slave_status;
>>       u32 i;
>>       u8 devnum = 0;
>>       int ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>> @@ -382,10 +443,19 @@ static irqreturn_t qcom_swrm_irq_handler(int 
>> irq, void *dev_id)
>>                   break;
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_NEW_SLAVE_ATTACHED:
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_CHANGE_ENUM_SLAVE_STATUS:
>> -                dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev, "%s: SWR new slave 
>> attached\n",
>> +                dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev, "%s: SWR slave status 
>> changed\n",
>>                       __func__);
>> -                qcom_swrm_get_device_status(swrm);
>> -                sdw_handle_slave_status(&swrm->bus, swrm->status);
>> +                swrm->reg_read(swrm, SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS, 
>> &slave_status);
>> +                if (swrm->slave_status == slave_status) {
>> +                    dev_err(swrm->dev, "Slave status not changed %x\n",
>> +                        slave_status);
>> +                    break;
>> +                } else {
>> +                    dev_err(swrm->dev, "Slave status handle %x\n", 
>> slave_status);
>> +                    qcom_swrm_get_device_status(swrm);
>> +                    qcom_swrm_enumerate(&swrm->bus);
>> +                    sdw_handle_slave_status(&swrm->bus, swrm->status);
>> +                }
>>                   break;
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_MASTER_CLASH_DET:
>>                   dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev,
>> @@ -472,8 +542,8 @@ static int qcom_swrm_init(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl 
>> *ctrl)
>>       ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_MCP_FRAME_CTRL_BANK_ADDR(0), val);
>> -    /* Disable Auto enumeration */
>> -    ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_CFG_ADDR, 0);
>> +    /* Enable Auto enumeration */
>> +    ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_CFG_ADDR, 1);
>>       ctrl->intr_mask = SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_RMSK;
>>       /* Mask soundwire interrupts */
>> @@ -507,6 +577,7 @@ static int qcom_swrm_init(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl 
>> *ctrl)
>>           ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_INTERRUPT_CPU_EN,
>>                   SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_RMSK);
>>       }
>> +    ctrl->slave_status = 0;
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -1068,6 +1139,7 @@ static int qcom_swrm_probe(struct 
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>       dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, ctrl);
>>       mutex_init(&ctrl->port_lock);
>>       init_completion(&ctrl->broadcast);
>> +    init_completion(&ctrl->enumeration);
>>       ctrl->bus.ops = &qcom_swrm_ops;
>>       ctrl->bus.port_ops = &qcom_swrm_port_ops;
>>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>,
	vkoul@kernel.org
Cc: sanyog.r.kale@intel.com, yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] soundwire: qcom: add auto enumeration support
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:33:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4721dd27-c8ce-f988-3c10-794841390656@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0c551b23-7ed4-59d7-72c2-284bdf8584f1@linux.intel.com>



On 26/02/2021 17:44, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
>> +static int qcom_swrm_enumerate(struct sdw_bus *bus)
>> +{
>> +    struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl = to_qcom_sdw(bus);
>> +    struct sdw_slave *slave, *_s;
>> +    struct sdw_slave_id id;
>> +    u32 val1, val2;
>> +    u64 addr;
>> +    int i;
>> +    char *buf1 = (char *)&val1, *buf2 = (char *)&val2;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 1; i < (SDW_MAX_DEVICES + 1); i++) {
> 
> I don't understand the (SDW_MAX_DEVICES + 1)?
If you mean +1 then probably we can add <= instead of just < to make it 
look like other parts of code in bus.c

for (i = 1; i <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; i++)

> 
> 
>> +        /*SCP_Devid5 - Devid 4*/
>> +        ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_1(i), &val1);
>> +
>> +        /*SCP_Devid3 - DevId 2 Devid 1 Devid 0*/
>> +        ctrl->reg_read(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_2(i), &val2);
> 
> Do you mind explaining a bit what happens here?
> Does the hardware issue commands to read all DevID registers and set the 
> device number automagically?

exactly the hardware assigns device numbers to slaves automatically, and 
the devnum can be figured out by the controller driver by reading 
SWRM_ENUMERATOR_SLAVE_DEV_ID_1/2 registers!

> If yes, then in SoundWire parlance the enumeration is complete. What you 
> are doing below is no longer part of the enumeration.

yes, enumeration is complete by the hardware, however the controller 
driver need to know the dev number assigned by the hardware, this 
routine is doing that!
> 
> 
>> +
>> +        if (!val1 && !val2)
>> +            break;
>> +
>> +        addr = buf2[1] | (buf2[0] << 8) | (buf1[3] << 16) |
>> +            ((u64)buf1[2] << 24) | ((u64)buf1[1] << 32) |
>> +            ((u64)buf1[0] << 40);
>> +
>> +        sdw_extract_slave_id(bus, addr, &id);
>> +        /* Now compare with entries */
>> +        list_for_each_entry_safe(slave, _s, &bus->slaves, node) {
>> +            if (sdw_compare_devid(slave, id) == 0) {
>> +                u32 status = qcom_swrm_get_n_device_status(ctrl, i);
>> +                if (status == SDW_SLAVE_ATTACHED) {
>> +                    slave->dev_num = i;
>> +                    mutex_lock(&bus->bus_lock);
>> +                    set_bit(i, bus->assigned);
>> +                    mutex_unlock(&bus->bus_lock);
>> +
>> +                }
> 
> And that part is strange as well. The bus->assigned bit should be set 
> even if the Slave is not in the list provided by platform firmware. It's 
> really tracking the state of the hardware, and it should not be 
> influenced by what software knows to manage.

Am not 100% sure If I understand the concern here, but In normal (non 
auto enum) cases this bit is set by the bus code while its doing 
enumeration to assign a dev number from the assigned bitmap!

However in this case where auto enumeration happens it makes sense to 
set this here with matching dev number!

AFAIU from code, each bit in this bitmap corresponds to slave dev number!


> 
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +        }
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    complete(&ctrl->enumeration);
> 
> you have init_completion() and complete() in this patch, but no 
> wait_for_completion(), so that should be added in a later patch, no?

make sense, will move that to other patch!

--srini
> 
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static irqreturn_t qcom_swrm_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>   {
>>       struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *swrm = dev_id;
>> -    u32 value, intr_sts, intr_sts_masked;
>> +    u32 value, intr_sts, intr_sts_masked, slave_status;
>>       u32 i;
>>       u8 devnum = 0;
>>       int ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>> @@ -382,10 +443,19 @@ static irqreturn_t qcom_swrm_irq_handler(int 
>> irq, void *dev_id)
>>                   break;
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_NEW_SLAVE_ATTACHED:
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_CHANGE_ENUM_SLAVE_STATUS:
>> -                dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev, "%s: SWR new slave 
>> attached\n",
>> +                dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev, "%s: SWR slave status 
>> changed\n",
>>                       __func__);
>> -                qcom_swrm_get_device_status(swrm);
>> -                sdw_handle_slave_status(&swrm->bus, swrm->status);
>> +                swrm->reg_read(swrm, SWRM_MCP_SLV_STATUS, 
>> &slave_status);
>> +                if (swrm->slave_status == slave_status) {
>> +                    dev_err(swrm->dev, "Slave status not changed %x\n",
>> +                        slave_status);
>> +                    break;
>> +                } else {
>> +                    dev_err(swrm->dev, "Slave status handle %x\n", 
>> slave_status);
>> +                    qcom_swrm_get_device_status(swrm);
>> +                    qcom_swrm_enumerate(&swrm->bus);
>> +                    sdw_handle_slave_status(&swrm->bus, swrm->status);
>> +                }
>>                   break;
>>               case SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_MASTER_CLASH_DET:
>>                   dev_err_ratelimited(swrm->dev,
>> @@ -472,8 +542,8 @@ static int qcom_swrm_init(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl 
>> *ctrl)
>>       ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_MCP_FRAME_CTRL_BANK_ADDR(0), val);
>> -    /* Disable Auto enumeration */
>> -    ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_CFG_ADDR, 0);
>> +    /* Enable Auto enumeration */
>> +    ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_ENUMERATOR_CFG_ADDR, 1);
>>       ctrl->intr_mask = SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_RMSK;
>>       /* Mask soundwire interrupts */
>> @@ -507,6 +577,7 @@ static int qcom_swrm_init(struct qcom_swrm_ctrl 
>> *ctrl)
>>           ctrl->reg_write(ctrl, SWRM_INTERRUPT_CPU_EN,
>>                   SWRM_INTERRUPT_STATUS_RMSK);
>>       }
>> +    ctrl->slave_status = 0;
>>       return 0;
>>   }
>> @@ -1068,6 +1139,7 @@ static int qcom_swrm_probe(struct 
>> platform_device *pdev)
>>       dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, ctrl);
>>       mutex_init(&ctrl->port_lock);
>>       init_completion(&ctrl->broadcast);
>> +    init_completion(&ctrl->enumeration);
>>       ctrl->bus.ops = &qcom_swrm_ops;
>>       ctrl->bus.port_ops = &qcom_swrm_port_ops;
>>

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-02 11:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-26 17:02 [PATCH 0/3] soundwire: qcom: add Clock Stop and Auto Enumeration support Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] soundwire: export sdw_compare_devid() and sdw_extract_slave_id() Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] soundwire: qcom: add auto enumeration support Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:44   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-02-26 17:44     ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-02 10:33     ` Srinivas Kandagatla [this message]
2021-03-02 10:33       ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-03-02 14:34       ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-02 14:34         ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-03  9:38         ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-03-03  9:38           ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-03-03 16:35           ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-05 10:39             ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-03-05 16:19               ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-05 16:57                 ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] soundwire: qcom: add clock stop via runtime pm support Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:02   ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-02-26 17:41   ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-02-26 17:41     ` Pierre-Louis Bossart
2021-03-03 11:46     ` Srinivas Kandagatla
2021-03-03 11:46       ` Srinivas Kandagatla

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4721dd27-c8ce-f988-3c10-794841390656@linaro.org \
    --to=srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org \
    --cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=sanyog.r.kale@intel.com \
    --cc=vkoul@kernel.org \
    --cc=yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.