| Message ID | 20230814112539.70453-1-sriranjani.p@samsung.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: stmmac: dwc-qos: Add FSD EQoS support | expand |
On 16/08/2023 08:38, Sriranjani P wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [mailto:krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org] >> Sent: 15 August 2023 01:21 >> To: Sriranjani P <sriranjani.p@samsung.com>; davem@davemloft.net; >> edumazet@google.com; kuba@kernel.org; pabeni@redhat.com; >> robh+dt@kernel.org; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org; >> conor+dt@kernel.org; richardcochran@gmail.com; >> alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com; joabreu@synopsys.com; >> mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com; alim.akhtar@samsung.com; linux- >> fsd@tesla.com; pankaj.dubey@samsung.com; swathi.ks@samsung.com; >> ravi.patel@samsung.com >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- >> kernel@lists.infradead.org; Chandrasekar R <rcsekar@samsung.com>; >> Suresh Siddha <ssiddha@tesla.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] net: stmmac: dwc-qos: Add FSD EQoS support >> >> On 14/08/2023 13:25, Sriranjani P wrote: >>> The FSD SoC contains two instance of the Synopsys DWC ethernet QOS IP >> core. >>> The binding that it uses is slightly different from existing ones >>> because of the integration (clocks, resets). >>> >>> For FSD SoC, a mux switch is needed between internal and external clocks. >>> By default after reset internal clock is used but for receiving >>> packets properly, external clock is needed. Mux switch to external >>> clock happens only when the external clock is present. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chandrasekar R <rcsekar@samsung.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <ssiddha@tesla.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Swathi K S <swathi.ks@samsung.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Sriranjani P <sriranjani.p@samsung.com> >>> --- >> >> >>> +static int dwc_eqos_setup_rxclock(struct platform_device *pdev, int >>> +ins_num) { >>> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node; >>> + struct regmap *syscon; >>> + unsigned int reg; >>> + >>> + if (np && of_property_read_bool(np, "fsd-rx-clock-skew")) { >>> + syscon = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle_args(np, >>> + "fsd-rx-clock- >> skew", >>> + 1, ®); >>> + if (IS_ERR(syscon)) { >>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, >>> + "couldn't get the rx-clock-skew syscon!\n"); >>> + return PTR_ERR(syscon); >>> + } >>> + >>> + regmap_write(syscon, reg, rx_clock_skew_val[ins_num]); >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int fsd_eqos_clk_init(struct fsd_eqos_plat_data *plat, >>> + struct plat_stmmacenet_data *data) { >>> + int ret = 0, i; >>> + >>> + const struct fsd_eqos_variant *fsd_eqos_v_data = >>> + plat->fsd_eqos_inst_var; >>> + >>> + plat->clks = devm_kcalloc(plat->dev, fsd_eqos_v_data->num_clks, >>> + sizeof(*plat->clks), GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!plat->clks) >>> + return -ENOMEM; >>> + >>> + for (i = 0; i < fsd_eqos_v_data->num_clks; i++) >>> + plat->clks[i].id = fsd_eqos_v_data->clk_list[i]; >>> + >>> + ret = devm_clk_bulk_get(plat->dev, fsd_eqos_v_data->num_clks, >>> + plat->clks); >> >> Instead of duplicating entire clock management with existing code, you >> should extend/rework existing one. >> >> This code is unfortunately great example how not to stuff vendor code into >> upstream project. :( > > I will check again if I can extend existing one to support FSD platform specific requirement. > >> >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int fsd_clks_endisable(void *priv, bool enabled) { >>> + int ret, num_clks; >>> + struct fsd_eqos_plat_data *plat = priv; >>> + >>> + num_clks = plat->fsd_eqos_inst_var->num_clks; >>> + >>> + if (enabled) { >>> + ret = clk_bulk_prepare_enable(num_clks, plat->clks); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + dev_err(plat->dev, "Clock enable failed, err = %d\n", >> ret); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> + } else { >>> + clk_bulk_disable_unprepare(num_clks, plat->clks); >>> + } >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static int fsd_eqos_probe(struct platform_device *pdev, >>> + struct plat_stmmacenet_data *data, >>> + struct stmmac_resources *res) >>> +{ >>> + struct fsd_eqos_plat_data *priv_plat; >>> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + >>> + priv_plat = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv_plat), >> GFP_KERNEL); >>> + if (!priv_plat) { >>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >> >> return -ENOMEM > > Will fix this in v4. > >> >>> + goto error; >>> + } >>> + >>> + priv_plat->dev = &pdev->dev; >>> + data->bus_id = of_alias_get_id(np, "eth"); >> >> No, you cannot do like this. Aliases are board specific and are based on >> labeling on the board. > > So if I understood this correctly, I need to move alias in the board specific DTS file This part: yes > and I can use this, because we have to handle rx-clock-skew differently for the two instances in the FSD platform. Not really. Do you expect it to work correctly if given EQoS instance receives different alias, e.g. 5? > Another approach we took in v1, by specifying the value to be programmed in rx-clock-skew property itself, but it seems it is not a preferred approach. > I can see that in drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_platform.c +436 common code is already using this API and getting alias id, so I can probably use the same rather getting same again here, but I have to specify alias in DTS file. Getting alias ID is okay in general. It is used to provide user-visible ID of the devices (see mmc). Using such alias to configure hardware is abuse of the alias, because of the reasons I said - how is it supposed to work if alias is 5 (this is perfectly valid alias)? I suspect that all this is to substitute missing abstractions, like clocks, phys or resets... Best regards, Krzysztof