lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 04/14] media: rkisp1: add Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY driver
Date
Hi Laurent,

Thanks for your review, I just have some comments/questions below.

On 8/15/19 2:54 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Helen,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:37:55AM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
>> On 8/7/19 10:05 AM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 03:42:46PM -0300, Helen Koike wrote:
>>>> From: Jacob Chen <jacob2.chen@rock-chips.com>
>>>>
>>>> This commit adds a subdev driver for Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY driver
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Chen <jacob2.chen@rock-chips.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shunqian Zheng <zhengsq@rock-chips.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
>>>> [migrate to phy framework]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@collabora.com>
>>>> [update for upstream]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Helen Koike <helen.koike@collabora.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v8:
>>>> - Remove boiler plate license text
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v7:
>>>> - Migrate dphy specific code from
>>>> drivers/media/platform/rockchip/isp1/mipi_dphy_sy.c
>>>> to drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c
>>>> - Drop support for rk3288
>>>> - Drop support for dphy txrx
>>>> - code styling and checkpatch fixes
>>>>
>>>> drivers/phy/rockchip/Kconfig | 8 +
>>>> drivers/phy/rockchip/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c | 408 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 417 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/Kconfig b/drivers/phy/rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> index c454c90cd99e..afd072f135e6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,14 @@ config PHY_ROCKCHIP_DP
>>>> help
>>>> Enable this to support the Rockchip Display Port PHY.
>>>>
>>>> +config PHY_ROCKCHIP_DPHY
>>>> + tristate "Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY driver"
>
> How much of this PHY is Rockchip-specific ? Would it make sense to turn
> it into a Synopsys DPHY driver, with some Rockchip glue ? I suppose this
> could always be done later, if needed (and I also suppose there's no
> existing driver in drivers/phy/ that support the same Synopsys IP).
>
>>>> + depends on ARCH_ROCKCHIP && OF
>>>
>>> How about (...) || COMPILE_TEST ?
>>>
>>>> + select GENERIC_PHY_MIPI_DPHY
>>>> + select GENERIC_PHY
>>>> + help
>>>> + Enable this to support the Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY.
>>>> +
>>>> config PHY_ROCKCHIP_EMMC
>>>> tristate "Rockchip EMMC PHY Driver"
>>>> depends on ARCH_ROCKCHIP && OF
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/Makefile b/drivers/phy/rockchip/Makefile
>>>> index fd21cbaf40dd..f62e9010bcaf 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/phy/rockchip/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/Makefile
>>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>>> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_ROCKCHIP_DP) += phy-rockchip-dp.o
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_ROCKCHIP_DPHY) += phy-rockchip-dphy.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_ROCKCHIP_EMMC) += phy-rockchip-emmc.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_ROCKCHIP_INNO_HDMI) += phy-rockchip-inno-hdmi.o
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_ROCKCHIP_INNO_USB2) += phy-rockchip-inno-usb2.o
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 000000000000..3a29976c2dff
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/rockchip/phy-rockchip-dphy.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,408 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY driver
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Based on:
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2016 FuZhou Rockchip Co., Ltd.
>>>> + * Author: Yakir Yang <ykk@@rock-chips.com>
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/mfd/syscon.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/phy/phy-mipi-dphy.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON9 0x6224
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON21 0x6254
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON22 0x6258
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON23 0x625c
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24 0x6260
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON25 0x6264
>>>> +#define RK3399_GRF_SOC_STATUS1 0xe2a4
>>>> +
>>>> +#define CLOCK_LANE_HS_RX_CONTROL 0x34
>>>> +#define LANE0_HS_RX_CONTROL 0x44
>>>> +#define LANE1_HS_RX_CONTROL 0x54
>>>> +#define LANE2_HS_RX_CONTROL 0x84
>>>> +#define LANE3_HS_RX_CONTROL 0x94
>>>> +#define HS_RX_DATA_LANES_THS_SETTLE_CONTROL 0x75
>>>> +
>>>> +#define MAX_DPHY_CLK 8
>>>> +
>>>> +#define PHY_TESTEN_ADDR (0x1 << 16)
>>>> +#define PHY_TESTEN_DATA (0x0 << 16)
>>>> +#define PHY_TESTCLK (0x1 << 1)
>>>> +#define PHY_TESTCLR (0x1 << 0)
>
> Maybe s/0x// for the previous four lines ?
>
>>>> +#define THS_SETTLE_COUNTER_THRESHOLD 0x04
>>>> +
>>>> +#define HIWORD_UPDATE(val, mask, shift) \
>>>> + ((val) << (shift) | (mask) << ((shift) + 16))
>
> As you use this in a single place, I would inline it, possibly with a
> small comment that explains what's happening.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define GRF_SOC_CON12 0x0274
>>>> +
>>>> +#define GRF_EDP_REF_CLK_SEL_INTER_HIWORD_MASK BIT(20)
>>>> +#define GRF_EDP_REF_CLK_SEL_INTER BIT(4)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define GRF_EDP_PHY_SIDDQ_HIWORD_MASK BIT(21)
>>>> +#define GRF_EDP_PHY_SIDDQ_ON 0
>>>> +#define GRF_EDP_PHY_SIDDQ_OFF BIT(5)
>
> I would recommend aligning the value of of all macros in the same way.
>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct hsfreq_range {
>>>> + u32 range_h;
>
> The structure would be more compact if you turned this into a u16.
>
>>>> + u8 cfg_bit;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct hsfreq_range rk3399_mipidphy_hsfreq_ranges[] = {
>>>> + { 89, 0x00}, { 99, 0x10}, { 109, 0x20}, { 129, 0x01},
>>>> + { 139, 0x11}, { 149, 0x21}, { 169, 0x02}, { 179, 0x12},
>>>> + { 199, 0x22}, { 219, 0x03}, { 239, 0x13}, { 249, 0x23},
>>>> + { 269, 0x04}, { 299, 0x14}, { 329, 0x05}, { 359, 0x15},
>>>> + { 399, 0x25}, { 449, 0x06}, { 499, 0x16}, { 549, 0x07},
>>>> + { 599, 0x17}, { 649, 0x08}, { 699, 0x18}, { 749, 0x09},
>>>> + { 799, 0x19}, { 849, 0x29}, { 899, 0x39}, { 949, 0x0a},
>>>> + { 999, 0x1a}, {1049, 0x2a}, {1099, 0x3a}, {1149, 0x0b},
>>>> + {1199, 0x1b}, {1249, 0x2b}, {1299, 0x3b}, {1349, 0x0c},
>>>> + {1399, 0x1c}, {1449, 0x2c}, {1500, 0x3c}
>
> Maybe s/{/{ / and s/}/ }/ to give it a bit more air ? :-)
>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const char * const rk3399_mipidphy_clks[] = {
>>>> + "dphy-ref",
>>>> + "dphy-cfg",
>>>> + "grf",
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +enum dphy_reg_id {
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNDISABLE = 0,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCERXMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_ENABLE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLR,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTEN,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDIN,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNREQUEST,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDOUT,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNDISABLE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCERXMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNREQUEST,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNDISABLE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCERXMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCETXSTOPMODE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLE,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_MASTERSLAVEZ,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_BASEDIR,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLECLK,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNREQUEST,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX1_SRC_SEL,
>>>> + /* rk3288 only */
>>>> + GRF_CON_DISABLE_ISP,
>>>> + GRF_CON_ISP_DPHY_SEL,
>>>> + GRF_DSI_CSI_TESTBUS_SEL,
>>>> + GRF_DVP_V18SEL,
>>>> + /* below is for rk3399 only */
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX0_CLK_INV_SEL,
>>>> + GRF_DPHY_RX1_CLK_INV_SEL,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct dphy_reg {
>>>> + u32 offset;
>>>> + u32 mask;
>>>> + u32 shift;
>
> The offset should hold in 16 bits and the mask and shift in 8 bits. That
> would save space in the table below.
>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +#define PHY_REG(_offset, _width, _shift) \
>>>> + { .offset = _offset, .mask = BIT(_width) - 1, .shift = _shift, }
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct dphy_reg rk3399_grf_dphy_regs[] = {
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON9, 4, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_CLK_INV_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON9, 1, 10),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX1_CLK_INV_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON9, 1, 11),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_ENABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON21, 4, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON21, 4, 4),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON21, 4, 8),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON21, 4, 12),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON22, 4, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON22, 4, 4),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON22, 4, 8),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON22, 4, 12),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON23, 4, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON23, 4, 4),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON23, 4, 8),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON23, 4, 12),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24, 4, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX1_SRC_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24, 1, 4),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_BASEDIR] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24, 1, 5),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLECLK] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24, 1, 6),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_MASTERSLAVEZ] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON24, 1, 7),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDIN] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON25, 8, 0),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTEN] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON25, 1, 8),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON25, 1, 9),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLR] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_CON25, 1, 10),
>>>> + [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDOUT] = PHY_REG(RK3399_GRF_SOC_STATUS1, 8, 0),
>
> The annoying part with such an indirection is that you can't really
> write multiple fields in a single register with a single operation.
> Is
> the register mapping completely different between the rk3288 and the
> rk3399, or are the fields grouped in registers in a similar way ? In the
> latter case we could possibly optimise it.

This would be the rk3288 version:

+static const struct dphy_reg rk3288_grf_dphy_regs[] = {
+ [GRF_CON_DISABLE_ISP] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON6, 1, 0),
+ [GRF_CON_ISP_DPHY_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON6, 1, 1),
+ [GRF_DSI_CSI_TESTBUS_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON6, 1, 14),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON8, 4, 0),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON8, 4, 4),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON8, 4, 8),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON9, 4, 0),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON9, 4, 4),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON9, 4, 8),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON9, 4, 12),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNDISABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON10, 4, 0),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCERXMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON10, 4, 4),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON10, 4, 8),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_ENABLE] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON10, 4, 12),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLR] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 0),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 1),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTEN] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 2),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDIN] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 8, 3),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_ENABLECLK] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 12),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX1_SRC_SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 13),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_MASTERSLAVEZ] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 14),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_BASEDIR] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON14, 1, 15),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON15, 4, 0),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX1RX1_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON15, 4, 4),
+ [GRF_DPHY_TX0_TURNREQUEST] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_CON15, 3, 8),
+ [GRF_DVP_V18SEL] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_IO_VSEL, 1, 1),
+ [GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDOUT] = PHY_REG(RK3288_GRF_SOC_STATUS21, 8, 0),
+};

Which seems different mask and shifts from rk3399. If you have any ideas in
how to optimize this I would appreciate it.

>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct dphy_drv_data {
>>>> + const char * const *clks;
>>>> + int num_clks;
>
> This is never negative, you can make it an unsigned int.
>
>>>> + const struct hsfreq_range *hsfreq_ranges;
>>>> + int num_hsfreq_ranges;
>
> Same here.
>
>>>> + const struct dphy_reg *regs;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct rockchip_dphy {
>>>> + struct device *dev;
>>>> + struct regmap *grf;
>>>> + const struct dphy_reg *grf_regs;
>>>> + struct clk_bulk_data clks[MAX_DPHY_CLK];
>>>> +
>>>> + const struct dphy_drv_data *drv_data;
>>>> + struct phy_configure_opts_mipi_dphy config;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static inline void write_grf_reg(struct rockchip_dphy *priv,
>>>> + int index, u8 value)
>
> Maybe unsigned int index ?
>
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct dphy_reg *reg = &priv->grf_regs[index];
>>>> + unsigned int val = HIWORD_UPDATE(value, reg->mask, reg->shift);
>>>> +
>>>> + WARN_ON(!reg->offset);
>>>> + regmap_write(priv->grf, reg->offset, val);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void mipidphy0_wr_reg(struct rockchip_dphy *priv,
>>>> + u8 test_code, u8 test_data)
>
> Function (and structure) names have different prefixes, would it make
> sense to standardise them ? Maybe rockchip_dphy_ ? Or rk_dphy_ for a
> shorter version ? This could become rk_dphy_write_dphy(), and the
> previous function rk_dphy_write_grf().
>
>>>> +{
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * With the falling edge on TESTCLK, the TESTDIN[7:0] signal content
>>>> + * is latched internally as the current test code. Test data is
>>>> + * programmed internally by rising edge on TESTCLK.
>>>> + */
>
> I've never understood why PHYs tend to have a register named TEST that
> contains way more than test data :-)
>
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK, 1);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDIN, test_code);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTEN, 1);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK, 0);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTEN, 0);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTDIN, test_data);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK, 1);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +/* should be move to power_on */
>
> s/move/moved/
>
> Do you mean merging the two functions together ? What prevents from
> doing so ?

Nothing really, this is a left over command as mipidphy_rx_stream_on() is already
being called from power_on, and I don't think we should merge it because
in the future we'll probably going to have mipidphy_txrx_stream_on() for dphy1.

>
>>>> +static int mipidphy_rx_stream_on(struct rockchip_dphy *priv)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct dphy_drv_data *drv_data = priv->drv_data;
>>>> + const struct hsfreq_range *hsfreq_ranges = drv_data->hsfreq_ranges;
>>>> + struct phy_configure_opts_mipi_dphy *config = &priv->config;
>>>> + unsigned int i, hsfreq = 0, data_rate_mbps = config->hs_clk_rate;
>>>> + int num_hsfreq_ranges = drv_data->num_hsfreq_ranges;
>>>> +
>>>> + do_div(data_rate_mbps, 1000 * 1000);
>>>> +
>>>> + dev_dbg(priv->dev, "%s: lanes %d - data_rate_mbps %u\n",
>>>> + __func__, config->lanes, data_rate_mbps);
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < num_hsfreq_ranges; i++) {
>>>> + if (hsfreq_ranges[i].range_h >= data_rate_mbps) {
>>>> + hsfreq = hsfreq_ranges[i].cfg_bit;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>
> As num_hsfreq_ranges and hsfreq_ranges are only used in this loop, I
> would remove the local variables.
>
>>>> +
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCERXMODE, 0);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_FORCETXSTOPMODE, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Disable lan turn around, which is ignored in receive mode */
>
> Is it "lan turn around", or "lane turn around" ?
>
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNREQUEST, 0);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TURNDISABLE, 0xf);
>>>> +
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_ENABLE, GENMASK(config->lanes - 1, 0));
>>>> +
>>>> + /* dphy start */
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLK, 1);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLR, 1);
>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
>>>> + write_grf_reg(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_TESTCLR, 0);
>>>> + usleep_range(100, 150);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* set clock lane */
>>>> + /* HS hsfreq_range & lane 0 settle bypass */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, CLOCK_LANE_HS_RX_CONTROL, 0);
>>>> + /* HS RX Control of lane0 */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, LANE0_HS_RX_CONTROL, hsfreq << 1);
>>>> + /* HS RX Control of lane1 */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, LANE1_HS_RX_CONTROL, 0);
>>>> + /* HS RX Control of lane2 */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, LANE2_HS_RX_CONTROL, 0);
>>>> + /* HS RX Control of lane3 */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, LANE3_HS_RX_CONTROL, 0);
>
> Does this hardcode usage of a single lane ?

Rockchip seems to uses TEST* registers to set the hsfreqrange.
It mentions the test code 0x44 (which is LANE0_HS_RX_CONTROL)
but it doesn't mention the others lanes.

Replacing those call by
mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, LANEx_HS_RX_CONTROL, hsfreq << 1);
seems to be working.

I can check if this changes the datarate (I just need to figure a proper
way to test this or get some docs).

Thanks for spotting this.

>
>>>> + /* HS RX Data Lanes Settle State Time Control */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, HS_RX_DATA_LANES_THS_SETTLE_CONTROL,
>>>> + THS_SETTLE_COUNTER_THRESHOLD);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Normal operation */
>>>> + mipidphy0_wr_reg(priv, 0x0, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_configure(struct phy *phy, union phy_configure_opts *opts)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* pass with phy_mipi_dphy_get_default_config (with pixel rate?) */
>
> I'm not sure to understand what this means.
>

iirc, the question is if we should fail when phy_mipi_dphy_config_validate() fails,
or if we should use a default config.

Looking at other examples, is seems that only two drivers call
phy_mipi_dphy_get_default_config() in a totally diferent context, not in mipi path.
So I guess I would just remove this comment if this is ok with you.


>>>> + ret = phy_mipi_dphy_config_validate(&opts->mipi_dphy);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + memcpy(&priv->config, opts, sizeof(priv->config));
>>>
>>> You could to:
>>>
>>> priv->config = *opts;
>>>
>>> Up to you. Some people like memcpy(). :-)
>>
>> your way is better thanks!
>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = clk_bulk_enable(priv->drv_data->num_clks, priv->clks);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + return mipidphy_rx_stream_on(priv);
>
> Should you call clk_bulk_disable() if mipidphy_rx_stream_on() fails ?
> Actually that function never fails, so I'd make it a void function, and
> return 0 here.

Ack, I made it void, I'll send it in the next version.

>
> What happens if the clock rate is higher than the maximum supported by
> the PHY ? Shouldn't rockchip_dphy_configure() fail in that case ?

This is checked in function mipidphy_rx_stream_on(), if it is higher we just
configure the maximum supported rate. Is this ok?

>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> +
>
> No need to write any register ? That's scary, what will happen on the
> next power on, when the clocks gets enabled ?

Just for testing, I hacked the code to only call mipidphy_rx_stream_on() once,
when streaming for the first time, then I don't call it anymore and starting/stopping
streaming always works, so I guess it keeps the previous configuration when clocks
get enabled.
I wonder if this can be a problem when switching from dphy rx to txrx, but for now
we just support rx.

Maybe just calling rk_dphy_write_grf(priv, GRF_DPHY_RX0_ENABLE, 0) is enough.

>
>>>> + clk_bulk_disable(priv->drv_data->num_clks, priv->clks);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_init(struct phy *phy)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = clk_bulk_prepare(priv->drv_data->num_clks, priv->clks);
>>>
>>> return ...;
>>>
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_exit(struct phy *phy)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv = phy_get_drvdata(phy);
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_bulk_unprepare(priv->drv_data->num_clks, priv->clks);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct phy_ops rockchip_dphy_ops = {
>>>> + .power_on = rockchip_dphy_power_on,
>>>> + .power_off = rockchip_dphy_power_off,
>>>> + .init = rockchip_dphy_init,
>>>> + .exit = rockchip_dphy_exit,
>>>> + .configure = rockchip_dphy_configure,
>>>> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct dphy_drv_data rk3399_mipidphy_drv_data = {
>>>> + .clks = rk3399_mipidphy_clks,
>>>> + .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(rk3399_mipidphy_clks),
>>>> + .hsfreq_ranges = rk3399_mipidphy_hsfreq_ranges,
>>>> + .num_hsfreq_ranges = ARRAY_SIZE(rk3399_mipidphy_hsfreq_ranges),
>>>> + .regs = rk3399_grf_dphy_regs,
>>>
>>> Do you expect to support more of the similar PHY(s) --- are there such? If
>>> not, you could put these in the code that uses them.
>>
>> Yes, for rk3288 in the future.
>>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id rockchip_dphy_dt_ids[] = {
>>>> + {
>>>> + .compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-mipi-dphy",
>>>> + .data = &rk3399_mipidphy_drv_data,
>>>> + },
>>>> + {}
>>>> +};
>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rockchip_dphy_dt_ids);
>>>> +
>>>> +static int rockchip_dphy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>>> + const struct dphy_drv_data *drv_data;
>>>> + struct phy_provider *phy_provider;
>>>> + const struct of_device_id *of_id;
>>>> + struct rockchip_dphy *priv;
>>>> + struct regmap *grf;
>>>> + struct phy *phy;
>>>> + unsigned int i;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!dev->parent || !dev->parent->of_node)
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0)) {
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Rockchip DPHY driver only suports rx\n");
>
> You can replace pdev->dev with dev here and below.
>
> s/rx/RX mode/ ?
>
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!priv)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + priv->dev = dev;
>>>> +
>>>> + grf = syscon_node_to_regmap(dev->parent->of_node);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(grf)) {
>>>> + grf = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node,
>>>> + "rockchip,grf");
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(grf)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Can't find GRF syscon\n");
>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + priv->grf = grf;
>>>> +
>>>> + of_id = of_match_device(rockchip_dphy_dt_ids, dev);
>>>> + if (!of_id)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + drv_data = of_id->data;
>>>> + priv->grf_regs = drv_data->regs;
>
> Do you have to store grf_regs in priv, or could it be accessed through
> priv->drv_data->regs ?
>
>>>> + priv->drv_data = drv_data;
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < drv_data->num_clks; i++)
>>>> + priv->clks[i].id = drv_data->clks[i];
>>>> + ret = devm_clk_bulk_get(&pdev->dev, drv_data->num_clks, priv->clks);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + phy = devm_phy_create(dev, np, &rockchip_dphy_ops);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(phy)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to create phy\n");
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(phy);
>>>> + }
>>>> + phy_set_drvdata(phy, priv);
>>>> +
>>>> + phy_provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(dev, of_phy_simple_xlate);
>>>> +
>>>> + return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phy_provider);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct platform_driver rockchip_dphy_driver = {
>>>> + .probe = rockchip_dphy_probe,
>>>> + .driver = {
>>>> + .name = "rockchip-mipi-dphy",
>>>> + .of_match_table = rockchip_dphy_dt_ids,
>>>> + },
>>>> +};
>>>> +module_platform_driver(rockchip_dphy_driver);
>>>> +
>>>> +MODULE_AUTHOR("Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@collabora.com>");
>>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Rockchip MIPI Synopsys DPHY driver");
>>>> +MODULE_LICENSE("Dual MIT/GPL");
>
> Overall this is quite good, there are only small issues.
>

Thank you a lot for your review
Helen

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-21 23:52    [W:0.150 / U:7.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site