Re: [PATCH v2 22/35] brcmfmac: chip: Handle 1024-unit sizes for TCM blocks

[Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3119 bytes --]

On 1/19/2022 1:36 PM, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 1/4/2022 8:26 AM, Hector Martin wrote:
>> BCM4387 has trailing odd-sized blocks as part of TCM which have
>> their size described as a multiple of 1024 instead of 8192. Handle this
>> so we can compute the TCM size properly.

So that is the deal. Wish someone over here told me about that :-p Gave 
my blessing already, but do have some remarks.

> Reviewed-by: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
>> ---
>>   .../wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/chip.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/chip.c 
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/chip.c
>> index 713546cebd5a..cfa93e3ef1a1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/chip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/chip.c
>> @@ -212,8 +212,8 @@ struct sbsocramregs {
>>   #define    ARMCR4_TCBANB_MASK    0xf
>>   #define    ARMCR4_TCBANB_SHIFT    0
>> -#define    ARMCR4_BSZ_MASK        0x3f
>> -#define    ARMCR4_BSZ_MULT        8192

Instead of deleting can we leave it here and...

>> +#define    ARMCR4_BSZ_MASK        0x7f
>> +#define    ARMCR4_BLK_1K_MASK    0x200
>>   struct brcmf_core_priv {
>>       struct brcmf_core pub;
>> @@ -675,7 +675,8 @@ static u32 brcmf_chip_sysmem_ramsize(struct 
>> brcmf_core_priv *sysmem)
>>   }
>>   /** Return the TCM-RAM size of the ARMCR4 core. */
>> -static u32 brcmf_chip_tcm_ramsize(struct brcmf_core_priv *cr4)
>> +static u32 brcmf_chip_tcm_ramsize(struct brcmf_chip_priv *ci,
>> +                  struct brcmf_core_priv *cr4)
> 
> Not sure why you add ci parameter here. It is not used below or am I 
> overlooking something.
> 
>>   {
>>       u32 corecap;
>>       u32 memsize = 0;
>> @@ -683,6 +684,7 @@ static u32 brcmf_chip_tcm_ramsize(struct 
>> brcmf_core_priv *cr4)
>>       u32 nbb;
>>       u32 totb;
>>       u32 bxinfo;
>> +    u32 blksize;
>>       u32 idx;
>>       corecap = brcmf_chip_core_read32(cr4, ARMCR4_CAP);
>> @@ -694,7 +696,12 @@ static u32 brcmf_chip_tcm_ramsize(struct 
>> brcmf_core_priv *cr4)
>>       for (idx = 0; idx < totb; idx++) {
>>           brcmf_chip_core_write32(cr4, ARMCR4_BANKIDX, idx);
>>           bxinfo = brcmf_chip_core_read32(cr4, ARMCR4_BANKINFO);
>> -        memsize += ((bxinfo & ARMCR4_BSZ_MASK) + 1) * ARMCR4_BSZ_MULT;
>> +        if (bxinfo & ARMCR4_BLK_1K_MASK)
>> +            blksize = 1024;
>> +        else
>> +            blksize = 8192;

... do following here instead:

		blksize = 8192;
		if (bxinfo & ARMCR4_BLK_1K_MASK)
			blksize >>= 3;

[not sure if mailreader is screwing with indentation or what]

>> +
>> +        memsize += ((bxinfo & ARMCR4_BSZ_MASK) + 1) * blksize;
>>       }
>>       return memsize;

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4219 bytes --]