| Message ID | 20230505064039.1630025-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add Qualcomm SM6115 / SM4250 EUD dt-bindings & driver support | expand |
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 14:05, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 5.05.2023 08:40, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > Add SM6115 / SM4250 SoC EUD support in qcom_eud driver. > > > > On some SoCs (like the SM6115 / SM4250 SoC), the mode manager > > needs to be accessed only via the secure world (through 'scm' > > calls). > > > > Also, the enable bit inside 'tcsr_check_reg' needs to be set > > first to set the eud in 'enable' mode on these SoCs. > > > > Since this difference comes from how the firmware is configured, so > > the driver now relies on the presence of an extra boolean DT property > > to identify if secure access is needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig | 1 + > > drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > index 99b15b77dfd5..fe1b5fec1dfc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ config USB_APPLEDISPLAY > > config USB_QCOM_EUD > > tristate "QCOM Embedded USB Debugger(EUD) Driver" > > depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST > > + select QCOM_SCM > > select USB_ROLE_SWITCH > > help > > This module enables support for Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > index b7f13df00764..18a2dee3b4b9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@ > > > > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > #include <linux/err.h> > > +#include <linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.h> > > #include <linux/interrupt.h> > > #include <linux/io.h> > > #include <linux/iopoll.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > > +#include <linux/of_device.h> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/sysfs.h> > > @@ -22,23 +24,35 @@ > > #define EUD_REG_VBUS_INT_CLR 0x0080 > > #define EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN 0x1014 > > #define EUD_REG_SW_ATTACH_DET 0x1018 > > -#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 > > +#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 > > > > #define EUD_ENABLE BIT(0) > > -#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) > > +#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) > > #define EUD_INT_VBUS BIT(2) > > #define EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE BIT(4) > > #define EUD_INT_ALL (EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE) > > > > +#define EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN BIT(0) > > +#define EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN (1) > BIT(0) == 1, is that actually a separate register or does it just > reflect whether scm_writel is used? > > If the latter, perhaps it'd be okay to just call it EUD_EN2_EN or > something along those lines? Isn't that perhaps what the docs call it? > > > > +#define EUD_EN2_DISABLE (0) > > +#define TCSR_CHECK_EN BIT(0) > > + > > +struct eud_soc_cfg { > > + u32 tcsr_check_offset; > > +}; > > + > > struct eud_chip { > > struct device *dev; > > struct usb_role_switch *role_sw; > > + const struct eud_soc_cfg *eud_cfg; > > void __iomem *base; > > void __iomem *mode_mgr; > > unsigned int int_status; > > int irq; > > bool enabled; > > bool usb_attached; > > + bool secure_mode_enable; > Since it's only used in the probe function now, we can get rid > of it! > > > + phys_addr_t secure_mode_mgr; > > }; > > > > static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > @@ -46,7 +60,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > writel(EUD_ENABLE, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); > > writel(EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE, > > priv->base + EUD_REG_INT1_EN_MASK); > > - writel(1, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > + > > + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) > > + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN); > > + else > > + writel(EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > > > return usb_role_switch_set_role(priv->role_sw, USB_ROLE_DEVICE); > > } > > @@ -54,7 +72,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > static void disable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > { > > writel(0, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); > > - writel(0, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > + > > + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) > > + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_DISABLE); > > + else > > + writel(EUD_EN2_DISABLE, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > } > > > > static ssize_t enable_show(struct device *dev, > > @@ -178,6 +200,8 @@ static void eud_role_switch_release(void *data) > > static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > { > > struct eud_chip *chip; > > + struct resource *res; > > + phys_addr_t tcsr_base, tcsr_check; > > int ret; > > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); > > @@ -200,9 +224,40 @@ static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (IS_ERR(chip->base)) > > return PTR_ERR(chip->base); > > > > - chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); > > - if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) > > - return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); > > + chip->secure_mode_enable = of_property_read_bool(chip->dev->of_node, > > + "qcom,secure-mode-enable"); > > + /* > > + * EUD block on a few Qualcomm SoCs need secure register access. > > + * Check for the same. > > + */ > > + if (chip->secure_mode_enable) { > if (of_property_read_bool...) > > > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1); > > + if (!res) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, > > + "failed to get secure_mode_mgr reg base\n"); > > + > > + chip->secure_mode_mgr = res->start; > > + } else { > > + chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); > > + if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) > > + return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); > > + } > > + > > + /* Check for any SoC specific config data */ > > + chip->eud_cfg = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev); > > + if (chip->eud_cfg) { > > + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "tcsr-base"); > > + if (!res) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, > > + "failed to get tcsr reg base\n"); > > + > > + tcsr_base = res->start; > This variable does not seem very useful, we can get rid of it. > > > + tcsr_check = tcsr_base + chip->eud_cfg->tcsr_check_offset; > > + > > + ret = qcom_scm_io_writel(tcsr_check, TCSR_CHECK_EN); > > + if (ret) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, ret, "failed to write tcsr check reg\n"); > > + } > > > > chip->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, chip->irq, handle_eud_irq, > > @@ -230,8 +285,13 @@ static int eud_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static const struct eud_soc_cfg sm6115_eud_cfg = { > This could be marked __initconst, but I'm not sure if future > additions won't need to be accessed after the driver has already > gone through its probe function.. Your call! Please no. The device can be probed later or reprobed, etc. We had __devinit* for this kind of data/functions, but it was removed around 3.x as the HOTPLUG also got removed. > > > Konrad > > + .tcsr_check_offset = 0x25018, > > +}; > > + > > static const struct of_device_id eud_dt_match[] = { > > { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-eud" }, > > + { .compatible = "qcom,sm6115-eud", .data = &sm6115_eud_cfg }, > > { } > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, eud_dt_match);
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 16:35, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 5.05.2023 08:40, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > > Add SM6115 / SM4250 SoC EUD support in qcom_eud driver. > > > > On some SoCs (like the SM6115 / SM4250 SoC), the mode manager > > needs to be accessed only via the secure world (through 'scm' > > calls). > > > > Also, the enable bit inside 'tcsr_check_reg' needs to be set > > first to set the eud in 'enable' mode on these SoCs. > > > > Since this difference comes from how the firmware is configured, so > > the driver now relies on the presence of an extra boolean DT property > > to identify if secure access is needed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig | 1 + > > drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > index 99b15b77dfd5..fe1b5fec1dfc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig > > @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ config USB_APPLEDISPLAY > > config USB_QCOM_EUD > > tristate "QCOM Embedded USB Debugger(EUD) Driver" > > depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST > > + select QCOM_SCM > > select USB_ROLE_SWITCH > > help > > This module enables support for Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > index b7f13df00764..18a2dee3b4b9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c > > @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@ > > > > #include <linux/bitops.h> > > #include <linux/err.h> > > +#include <linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.h> > > #include <linux/interrupt.h> > > #include <linux/io.h> > > #include <linux/iopoll.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/module.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > > +#include <linux/of_device.h> > > #include <linux/platform_device.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/sysfs.h> > > @@ -22,23 +24,35 @@ > > #define EUD_REG_VBUS_INT_CLR 0x0080 > > #define EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN 0x1014 > > #define EUD_REG_SW_ATTACH_DET 0x1018 > > -#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 > > +#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 > > > > #define EUD_ENABLE BIT(0) > > -#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) > > +#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) > > #define EUD_INT_VBUS BIT(2) > > #define EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE BIT(4) > > #define EUD_INT_ALL (EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE) > > > > +#define EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN BIT(0) > > +#define EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN (1) > BIT(0) == 1, is that actually a separate register or does it just > reflect whether scm_writel is used? > > If the latter, perhaps it'd be okay to just call it EUD_EN2_EN or > something along those lines? Isn't that perhaps what the docs call it? Ok, let's name it as EUD_EN2_ENABLE then. > > +#define EUD_EN2_DISABLE (0) > > +#define TCSR_CHECK_EN BIT(0) > > + > > +struct eud_soc_cfg { > > + u32 tcsr_check_offset; > > +}; > > + > > struct eud_chip { > > struct device *dev; > > struct usb_role_switch *role_sw; > > + const struct eud_soc_cfg *eud_cfg; > > void __iomem *base; > > void __iomem *mode_mgr; > > unsigned int int_status; > > int irq; > > bool enabled; > > bool usb_attached; > > + bool secure_mode_enable; > Since it's only used in the probe function now, we can get rid > of it! Ok. > > + phys_addr_t secure_mode_mgr; > > }; > > > > static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > @@ -46,7 +60,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > writel(EUD_ENABLE, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); > > writel(EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE, > > priv->base + EUD_REG_INT1_EN_MASK); > > - writel(1, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > + > > + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) > > + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN); > > + else > > + writel(EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > > > return usb_role_switch_set_role(priv->role_sw, USB_ROLE_DEVICE); > > } > > @@ -54,7 +72,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > static void disable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) > > { > > writel(0, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); > > - writel(0, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > + > > + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) > > + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_DISABLE); > > + else > > + writel(EUD_EN2_DISABLE, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); > > } > > > > static ssize_t enable_show(struct device *dev, > > @@ -178,6 +200,8 @@ static void eud_role_switch_release(void *data) > > static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > { > > struct eud_chip *chip; > > + struct resource *res; > > + phys_addr_t tcsr_base, tcsr_check; > > int ret; > > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); > > @@ -200,9 +224,40 @@ static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > if (IS_ERR(chip->base)) > > return PTR_ERR(chip->base); > > > > - chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); > > - if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) > > - return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); > > + chip->secure_mode_enable = of_property_read_bool(chip->dev->of_node, > > + "qcom,secure-mode-enable"); > > + /* > > + * EUD block on a few Qualcomm SoCs need secure register access. > > + * Check for the same. > > + */ > > + if (chip->secure_mode_enable) { > if (of_property_read_bool...) Sure. > > + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1); > > + if (!res) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, > > + "failed to get secure_mode_mgr reg base\n"); > > + > > + chip->secure_mode_mgr = res->start; > > + } else { > > + chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); > > + if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) > > + return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); > > + } > > + > > + /* Check for any SoC specific config data */ > > + chip->eud_cfg = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev); > > + if (chip->eud_cfg) { > > + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "tcsr-base"); > > + if (!res) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, > > + "failed to get tcsr reg base\n"); > > + > > + tcsr_base = res->start; > This variable does not seem very useful, we can get rid of it. Ok. > > + tcsr_check = tcsr_base + chip->eud_cfg->tcsr_check_offset; > > + > > + ret = qcom_scm_io_writel(tcsr_check, TCSR_CHECK_EN); > > + if (ret) > > + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, ret, "failed to write tcsr check reg\n"); > > + } > > > > chip->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, chip->irq, handle_eud_irq, > > @@ -230,8 +285,13 @@ static int eud_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static const struct eud_soc_cfg sm6115_eud_cfg = { > This could be marked __initconst, but I'm not sure if future > additions won't need to be accessed after the driver has already > gone through its probe function.. Your call! Like Dmitry also mentioned, I have my apprehensions as well marking this as __initconst, so let's not do that. I will wait for a few more comments and then will send a new version across. Thanks, Bhupesh > > + .tcsr_check_offset = 0x25018, > > +}; > > + > > static const struct of_device_id eud_dt_match[] = { > > { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-eud" }, > > + { .compatible = "qcom,sm6115-eud", .data = &sm6115_eud_cfg }, > > { } > > }; > > MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, eud_dt_match);
On 5.05.2023 17:50, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: > On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 16:35, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 5.05.2023 08:40, Bhupesh Sharma wrote: >>> Add SM6115 / SM4250 SoC EUD support in qcom_eud driver. >>> >>> On some SoCs (like the SM6115 / SM4250 SoC), the mode manager >>> needs to be accessed only via the secure world (through 'scm' >>> calls). >>> >>> Also, the enable bit inside 'tcsr_check_reg' needs to be set >>> first to set the eud in 'enable' mode on these SoCs. >>> >>> Since this difference comes from how the firmware is configured, so >>> the driver now relies on the presence of an extra boolean DT property >>> to identify if secure access is needed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig | 1 + >>> drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >>> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig >>> index 99b15b77dfd5..fe1b5fec1dfc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig >>> @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ config USB_APPLEDISPLAY >>> config USB_QCOM_EUD >>> tristate "QCOM Embedded USB Debugger(EUD) Driver" >>> depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST >>> + select QCOM_SCM >>> select USB_ROLE_SWITCH >>> help >>> This module enables support for Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c >>> index b7f13df00764..18a2dee3b4b9 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c >>> @@ -5,12 +5,14 @@ >>> >>> #include <linux/bitops.h> >>> #include <linux/err.h> >>> +#include <linux/firmware/qcom/qcom_scm.h> >>> #include <linux/interrupt.h> >>> #include <linux/io.h> >>> #include <linux/iopoll.h> >>> #include <linux/kernel.h> >>> #include <linux/module.h> >>> #include <linux/of.h> >>> +#include <linux/of_device.h> >>> #include <linux/platform_device.h> >>> #include <linux/slab.h> >>> #include <linux/sysfs.h> >>> @@ -22,23 +24,35 @@ >>> #define EUD_REG_VBUS_INT_CLR 0x0080 >>> #define EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN 0x1014 >>> #define EUD_REG_SW_ATTACH_DET 0x1018 >>> -#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 >>> +#define EUD_REG_EUD_EN2 0x0000 >>> >>> #define EUD_ENABLE BIT(0) >>> -#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) >>> +#define EUD_INT_PET_EUD BIT(0) >>> #define EUD_INT_VBUS BIT(2) >>> #define EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE BIT(4) >>> #define EUD_INT_ALL (EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE) >>> >>> +#define EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN BIT(0) >>> +#define EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN (1) >> BIT(0) == 1, is that actually a separate register or does it just >> reflect whether scm_writel is used? >> >> If the latter, perhaps it'd be okay to just call it EUD_EN2_EN or >> something along those lines? Isn't that perhaps what the docs call it? > > Ok, let's name it as EUD_EN2_ENABLE then. > >>> +#define EUD_EN2_DISABLE (0) >>> +#define TCSR_CHECK_EN BIT(0) >>> + >>> +struct eud_soc_cfg { >>> + u32 tcsr_check_offset; >>> +}; >>> + >>> struct eud_chip { >>> struct device *dev; >>> struct usb_role_switch *role_sw; >>> + const struct eud_soc_cfg *eud_cfg; >>> void __iomem *base; >>> void __iomem *mode_mgr; >>> unsigned int int_status; >>> int irq; >>> bool enabled; >>> bool usb_attached; >>> + bool secure_mode_enable; >> Since it's only used in the probe function now, we can get rid >> of it! > > Ok. > >>> + phys_addr_t secure_mode_mgr; >>> }; >>> >>> static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) >>> @@ -46,7 +60,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) >>> writel(EUD_ENABLE, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); >>> writel(EUD_INT_VBUS | EUD_INT_SAFE_MODE, >>> priv->base + EUD_REG_INT1_EN_MASK); >>> - writel(1, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); >>> + >>> + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) >>> + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_SECURE_EN); >>> + else >>> + writel(EUD_EN2_NONSECURE_EN, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); >>> >>> return usb_role_switch_set_role(priv->role_sw, USB_ROLE_DEVICE); >>> } >>> @@ -54,7 +72,11 @@ static int enable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) >>> static void disable_eud(struct eud_chip *priv) >>> { >>> writel(0, priv->base + EUD_REG_CSR_EUD_EN); >>> - writel(0, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); >>> + >>> + if (priv->secure_mode_mgr) >>> + qcom_scm_io_writel(priv->secure_mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2, EUD_EN2_DISABLE); >>> + else >>> + writel(EUD_EN2_DISABLE, priv->mode_mgr + EUD_REG_EUD_EN2); >>> } >>> >>> static ssize_t enable_show(struct device *dev, >>> @@ -178,6 +200,8 @@ static void eud_role_switch_release(void *data) >>> static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> { >>> struct eud_chip *chip; >>> + struct resource *res; >>> + phys_addr_t tcsr_base, tcsr_check; >>> int ret; >>> >>> chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL); >>> @@ -200,9 +224,40 @@ static int eud_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> if (IS_ERR(chip->base)) >>> return PTR_ERR(chip->base); >>> >>> - chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); >>> - if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) >>> - return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); >>> + chip->secure_mode_enable = of_property_read_bool(chip->dev->of_node, >>> + "qcom,secure-mode-enable"); >>> + /* >>> + * EUD block on a few Qualcomm SoCs need secure register access. >>> + * Check for the same. >>> + */ >>> + if (chip->secure_mode_enable) { >> if (of_property_read_bool...) > > Sure. > >>> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 1); >>> + if (!res) >>> + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, >>> + "failed to get secure_mode_mgr reg base\n"); >>> + >>> + chip->secure_mode_mgr = res->start; >>> + } else { >>> + chip->mode_mgr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 1); >>> + if (IS_ERR(chip->mode_mgr)) >>> + return PTR_ERR(chip->mode_mgr); >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* Check for any SoC specific config data */ >>> + chip->eud_cfg = of_device_get_match_data(&pdev->dev); >>> + if (chip->eud_cfg) { >>> + res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "tcsr-base"); >>> + if (!res) >>> + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, -ENODEV, >>> + "failed to get tcsr reg base\n"); >>> + >>> + tcsr_base = res->start; >> This variable does not seem very useful, we can get rid of it. > > Ok. > >>> + tcsr_check = tcsr_base + chip->eud_cfg->tcsr_check_offset; >>> + >>> + ret = qcom_scm_io_writel(tcsr_check, TCSR_CHECK_EN); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return dev_err_probe(chip->dev, ret, "failed to write tcsr check reg\n"); >>> + } >>> >>> chip->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >>> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, chip->irq, handle_eud_irq, >>> @@ -230,8 +285,13 @@ static int eud_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +static const struct eud_soc_cfg sm6115_eud_cfg = { >> This could be marked __initconst, but I'm not sure if future >> additions won't need to be accessed after the driver has already >> gone through its probe function.. Your call! > > Like Dmitry also mentioned, I have my apprehensions as well marking this > as __initconst, so let's not do that. Right, thanks Dmitry for pointing this out, I didn't think of usecases where a driver can be removed.. Konrad > > I will wait for a few more comments and then will send a new version across. > > Thanks, > Bhupesh > >>> + .tcsr_check_offset = 0x25018, >>> +}; >>> + >>> static const struct of_device_id eud_dt_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-eud" }, >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm6115-eud", .data = &sm6115_eud_cfg }, >>> { } >>> }; >>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, eud_dt_match);
Changes since v3: ---------------- - v3 can be viewed here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg137025.html - Addressed Konrad's review comments regarding mainly the driver code. Also fixed the .dtsi as per his comments. - Also collected his R-B for [PATCH 1/5]. Changes since v2: ---------------- - v2 can be viewed here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg137025.html - Addressed Bjorn and Krzysztof's comments. - Added [PATCH 1/5] which fixes the 'qcom_eud' sysfs path. - Added [PATCH 5/5] to enable EUD for Qualcomm QRB4210-RB2 boards. Changes since v1: ---------------- - v1 can be viewed here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20221231130743.3285664-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org - Added Krzysztof in Cc list. - Fixed the following issue reported by kernel test bot: >> ERROR: modpost: "qcom_scm_io_writel" [drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.ko] undefined! This series adds the dt-binding and driver support for SM6115 / SM4250 EUD (Embedded USB Debugger) block available on Qualcomm SoCs. It also enables the same for QRB4210-RB2 boards by default (the user still needs to enable the same via sysfs). The EUD is a mini-USB hub implemented on chip to support the USB-based debug and trace capabilities. EUD driver listens to events like USB attach or detach and then informs the USB about these events via ROLE-SWITCH. Bhupesh Sharma (5): usb: misc: eud: Fix eud sysfs path (use 'qcom_eud') dt-bindings: soc: qcom: eud: Add SM6115 / SM4250 support usb: misc: eud: Add driver support for SM6115 / SM4250 arm64: dts: qcom: sm6115: Add EUD dt node and dwc3 connector arm64: dts: qcom: qrb4210-rb2: Enable EUD debug peripheral Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-driver-eud | 2 +- .../bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,eud.yaml | 16 ++++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qrb4210-rb2.dts | 27 ++++++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6115.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++ drivers/usb/misc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/usb/misc/qcom_eud.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++-- 6 files changed, 162 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)