From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "pankaj.dubey" Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 04/12] soc: samsung: add exynos chipid driver support Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:05:16 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1490879826-16754-1-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> <1490879826-16754-5-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25]:13653 "EHLO epoutp02.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751496AbdDCJcH (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Apr 2017 05:32:07 -0400 Received: from epcas5p1.samsung.com (unknown [182.195.41.39]) by epoutp02.samsung.com (KnoxPortal) with ESMTP id 20170403093205epoutp02f94ae11444f08c7412bca24269f134df~x2Vh0b2Rk3082330823epoutp02F for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 09:32:05 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Marek Szyprowski , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: krzk@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, kgene@kernel.org, m.reichl@fivetechno.de, a.hajda@samsung.com, cwchoi00@gmail.com, javier@osg.samsung.com, Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Linus Walleij Hi Marek, On Monday 03 April 2017 01:27 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Hi Pankaj > > On 2017-03-30 15:16, Pankaj Dubey wrote: >> Exynos SoCs have Chipid, for identification of product IDs and SoC >> revisions. This patch intends to provide initialization code for all >> these functionalities, at the same time it provides some sysfs entries >> for accessing these information to user-space. >> >> This driver uses existing binding for exynos-chipid. snip >> + >> +static const struct exynos_soc_id { >> + const char *name; >> + unsigned int id; >> + unsigned int mask; >> +} soc_ids[] = { >> + { "EXYNOS3250", 0xE3472000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS4210", 0x43210000, 0xFFFFF000 }, > > You have once again changed the mask for Exynos4 SoCs, so please add > following line to the above array: Yes, this time I cross-verified from the UM of respective SoC's and added it. > > { "EXYNOS4210", 0x43200000, 0xFFFFF000 }, /* EVT0 revision */ > > Otherwise Exynos C210 (4210 EVT0) is not properly detected: > > soc soc0: Exynos: CPU[UNKNOWN] PRO_ID[0x43200200] REV[0x0] Detected Thanks for testing, I will add support for this. > >> + { "EXYNOS4212", 0x43220000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS4412", 0xE4412000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5250", 0x43520000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5260", 0xE5260000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5410", 0xE5410000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5420", 0xE5420000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5440", 0xE5440000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5800", 0xE5422000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS7420", 0xE7420000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5433", 0xE5433000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> +}; > > Now the mask is same for all revisions, so you can remove it from the above > array and directly use some kind of define in the code. Yes, I also observed, but somehow I missed to update this part. I will change this in next version. > >> + >> +static const char * __init product_id_to_soc_id(unsigned int product_id) >> +{ >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(soc_ids); i++) >> + if ((product_id & soc_ids[i].mask) == soc_ids[i].id) >> + return soc_ids[i].name; >> + return "UNKNOWN"; >> +} >> + >> +int __init exynos_chipid_early_init(void) >> +{ >> + struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr; >> + void __iomem *exynos_chipid_base; >> + struct soc_device *soc_dev; >> + struct device_node *root; >> + struct device_node *np; >> + struct device *dev; >> + u32 product_id; >> + u32 revision; >> + >> + /* look up for chipid node */ >> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >> "samsung,exynos4210-chipid"); >> + if (!np) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + exynos_chipid_base = of_iomap(np, 0); >> + of_node_put(np); >> + >> + if (!exynos_chipid_base) { >> + pr_err("%s: failed to map chipid\n", np->name); >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + } >> + >> + product_id = readl_relaxed(exynos_chipid_base); >> + revision = product_id & EXYNOS_REV_MASK; >> + iounmap(exynos_chipid_base); >> + >> + soc_dev_attr = kzalloc(sizeof(*soc_dev_attr), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!soc_dev_attr) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + soc_dev_attr->family = "Samsung Exynos"; >> + >> + root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >> + of_property_read_string(root, "model", &soc_dev_attr->machine); >> + of_node_put(root); >> + >> + soc_dev_attr->revision = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%x", revision); >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id = product_id_to_soc_id(product_id); >> + >> + soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr); >> + if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) { >> + kfree(soc_dev_attr->revision); >> + kfree_const(soc_dev_attr->soc_id); >> + kfree(soc_dev_attr); >> + return PTR_ERR(soc_dev); >> + } >> + dev = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev); >> + >> + dev_info(dev, "Exynos: CPU[%s] PRO_ID[0x%x] REV[0x%x] Detected\n", >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id, product_id, revision); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> +early_initcall(exynos_chipid_early_init); > > Best regards Thanks, Pankaj Dubey From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pankaj.dubey@samsung.com (pankaj.dubey) Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:05:16 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v9 04/12] soc: samsung: add exynos chipid driver support In-Reply-To: References: <1490879826-16754-1-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> <1490879826-16754-5-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Marek, On Monday 03 April 2017 01:27 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Hi Pankaj > > On 2017-03-30 15:16, Pankaj Dubey wrote: >> Exynos SoCs have Chipid, for identification of product IDs and SoC >> revisions. This patch intends to provide initialization code for all >> these functionalities, at the same time it provides some sysfs entries >> for accessing these information to user-space. >> >> This driver uses existing binding for exynos-chipid. snip >> + >> +static const struct exynos_soc_id { >> + const char *name; >> + unsigned int id; >> + unsigned int mask; >> +} soc_ids[] = { >> + { "EXYNOS3250", 0xE3472000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS4210", 0x43210000, 0xFFFFF000 }, > > You have once again changed the mask for Exynos4 SoCs, so please add > following line to the above array: Yes, this time I cross-verified from the UM of respective SoC's and added it. > > { "EXYNOS4210", 0x43200000, 0xFFFFF000 }, /* EVT0 revision */ > > Otherwise Exynos C210 (4210 EVT0) is not properly detected: > > soc soc0: Exynos: CPU[UNKNOWN] PRO_ID[0x43200200] REV[0x0] Detected Thanks for testing, I will add support for this. > >> + { "EXYNOS4212", 0x43220000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS4412", 0xE4412000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5250", 0x43520000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5260", 0xE5260000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5410", 0xE5410000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5420", 0xE5420000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5440", 0xE5440000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5800", 0xE5422000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS7420", 0xE7420000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> + { "EXYNOS5433", 0xE5433000, 0xFFFFF000 }, >> +}; > > Now the mask is same for all revisions, so you can remove it from the above > array and directly use some kind of define in the code. Yes, I also observed, but somehow I missed to update this part. I will change this in next version. > >> + >> +static const char * __init product_id_to_soc_id(unsigned int product_id) >> +{ >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(soc_ids); i++) >> + if ((product_id & soc_ids[i].mask) == soc_ids[i].id) >> + return soc_ids[i].name; >> + return "UNKNOWN"; >> +} >> + >> +int __init exynos_chipid_early_init(void) >> +{ >> + struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr; >> + void __iomem *exynos_chipid_base; >> + struct soc_device *soc_dev; >> + struct device_node *root; >> + struct device_node *np; >> + struct device *dev; >> + u32 product_id; >> + u32 revision; >> + >> + /* look up for chipid node */ >> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >> "samsung,exynos4210-chipid"); >> + if (!np) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + exynos_chipid_base = of_iomap(np, 0); >> + of_node_put(np); >> + >> + if (!exynos_chipid_base) { >> + pr_err("%s: failed to map chipid\n", np->name); >> + return -ENOMEM; >> + } >> + >> + product_id = readl_relaxed(exynos_chipid_base); >> + revision = product_id & EXYNOS_REV_MASK; >> + iounmap(exynos_chipid_base); >> + >> + soc_dev_attr = kzalloc(sizeof(*soc_dev_attr), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!soc_dev_attr) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + >> + soc_dev_attr->family = "Samsung Exynos"; >> + >> + root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >> + of_property_read_string(root, "model", &soc_dev_attr->machine); >> + of_node_put(root); >> + >> + soc_dev_attr->revision = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%x", revision); >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id = product_id_to_soc_id(product_id); >> + >> + soc_dev = soc_device_register(soc_dev_attr); >> + if (IS_ERR(soc_dev)) { >> + kfree(soc_dev_attr->revision); >> + kfree_const(soc_dev_attr->soc_id); >> + kfree(soc_dev_attr); >> + return PTR_ERR(soc_dev); >> + } >> + dev = soc_device_to_device(soc_dev); >> + >> + dev_info(dev, "Exynos: CPU[%s] PRO_ID[0x%x] REV[0x%x] Detected\n", >> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id, product_id, revision); >> + >> + return 0; >> +} >> +early_initcall(exynos_chipid_early_init); > > Best regards Thanks, Pankaj Dubey