On 7/21/2023 1:44 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:29:41AM +0530, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>> On 6/27/2023 8:01 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:06:24AM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>    
>>>> +static int dwc3_qcom_setup_mp_irq(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct dwc3_qcom *qcom = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>> +	char irq_name[15];
>>>> +	int irq;
>>>> +	int ret;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
>>>
>>> DWC3_MAX_PORTS here too and similar below.
>>>
>>>> +		if (qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq[i])
>>>> +			continue;
>>>
>>> This is not very nice. You should try to integrate the current lookup
>>> code as I told you to do with the PHY lookups. That is, use a single
>>> loop for all HS/SS IRQs, and pick the legacy name if the number of ports
>>> is 1.
>>>
>>> Of course, you added the xhci capability parsing to the core driver so
>>> that information is not yet available, but you need it in the glue
>>> driver also...
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, you can infer the number of ports from the
>>> interrupt names. Alternatively, you can infer it from the compatible
>>> string. In any case, you should not need to ways to determine the same
>>> information in the glue driver, then in the core part, and then yet
>>> again in the xhci driver...
> 
>>    The reason why I didn't integrate this with the original function was
>> the ACPI stuff. The MP devices have no ACPI variant. And I think for
>> clarity sake its best to keep these two functions separated.
> 
> No. The ACPI stuff may make this a little harder to implement, but
> that's not a sufficient reason to not try to refactor things properly.
> 
>>>> +
>>>> +		sprintf(irq_name, "dp%d_hs_phy_irq", i+1);
>>>
>>> Spaces around binary operators. Does not checkpatch warn about that?
>>>
>>>> +		irq = dwc3_qcom_get_irq(pdev, irq_name, -1);
>>>> +		if (irq > 0) {
>>>> +			irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>>>> +			ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(qcom->dev, irq, NULL,
>>>> +					qcom_dwc3_resume_irq,
>>>> +					IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>> +					irq_name, qcom);
>>>> +			if (ret) {
>>>> +				dev_err(qcom->dev, "%s failed: %d\n", irq_name, ret);
>>>> +				return ret;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq[i] = irq;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
>>>> +		if (qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq[i])
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		sprintf(irq_name, "dm%d_hs_phy_irq", i+1);
>>>> +		irq = dwc3_qcom_get_irq(pdev, irq_name, -1);
>>>> +		if (irq > 0) {
>>>> +			irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>>>> +			ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(qcom->dev, irq, NULL,
>>>> +					qcom_dwc3_resume_irq,
>>>> +					IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>> +					irq_name, qcom);
>>>> +			if (ret) {
>>>> +				dev_err(qcom->dev, "%s failed: %d\n", irq_name, ret);
>>>> +				return ret;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq[i] = irq;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
>>>> +		if (qcom->ss_phy_irq[i])
>>>> +			continue;
>>>> +
>>>> +		sprintf(irq_name, "ss%d_phy_irq", i+1);
>>>> +		irq = dwc3_qcom_get_irq(pdev, irq_name, -1);
>>>> +		if (irq > 0) {
>>>> +			irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>>>> +			ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(qcom->dev, irq, NULL,
>>>> +					qcom_dwc3_resume_irq,
>>>> +					IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>> +					irq_name, qcom);
>>>> +			if (ret) {
>>>> +				dev_err(qcom->dev, "%s failed: %d\n", irq_name, ret);
>>>> +				return ret;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +		}
>>>> +
>>>> +		qcom->ss_phy_irq[i] = irq;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> So the above should all be merged in either a single helper looking up
>>> all the interrupts for a port and resused for the non-MP case.
>>>
>> I agree, Will merge all under some common helper function.
> 
> Good.
> 
> Johan

Hi Johan,

  How about the implementation in the attached patches. This way we 
don't need to know if we are multiport capable or not.

Regards,
Krishna,