Add support for the M4Us found in the MT6795 Helio X10 SoC.
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
---
drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
index 71b2ace74cd6..3d802dd3f377 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
@@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
enum mtk_iommu_plat {
M4U_MT2712,
M4U_MT6779,
+ M4U_MT6795,
M4U_MT8167,
M4U_MT8173,
M4U_MT8183,
@@ -953,7 +954,8 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct mtk_iommu_data *data, unsigned int ban
* Global control settings are in bank0. May re-init these global registers
* since no sure if there is bank0 consumers.
*/
- if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
+ if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT6795 ||
+ data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD |
F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR_MT8173;
} else {
@@ -1138,6 +1140,9 @@ static int mtk_iommu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
case M4U_MT2712:
p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
break;
+ case M4U_MT6795:
+ p = "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg";
+ break;
case M4U_MT8173:
p = "mediatek,mt8173-infracfg";
break;
@@ -1404,6 +1409,18 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6779_data = {
.larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {5}, {7, 8}, {10}, {9}},
};
+static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6795_data = {
+ .m4u_plat = M4U_MT6795,
+ .flags = HAS_4GB_MODE | HAS_BCLK | RESET_AXI |
+ HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
+ .inv_sel_reg = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
+ .banks_num = 1,
+ .banks_enable = {true},
+ .iova_region = single_domain,
+ .iova_region_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
+ .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}}, /* Linear mapping. */
+};
+
static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt8167_data = {
.m4u_plat = M4U_MT8167,
.flags = RESET_AXI | HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
@@ -1515,6 +1532,7 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt8195_data_vpp = {
static const struct of_device_id mtk_iommu_of_ids[] = {
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-m4u", .data = &mt2712_data},
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt6779-m4u", .data = &mt6779_data},
+ { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u", .data = &mt6795_data},
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-m4u", .data = &mt8167_data},
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-m4u", .data = &mt8173_data},
{ .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-m4u", .data = &mt8183_data},
--
2.35.1On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 17:14 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Add support for the M4Us found in the MT6795 Helio X10 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
> angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> index 71b2ace74cd6..3d802dd3f377 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
> @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
> enum mtk_iommu_plat {
> M4U_MT2712,
> M4U_MT6779,
> + M4U_MT6795,
> M4U_MT8167,
> M4U_MT8173,
> M4U_MT8183,
> @@ -953,7 +954,8 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct
> mtk_iommu_data *data, unsigned int ban
> * Global control settings are in bank0. May re-init these
> global registers
> * since no sure if there is bank0 consumers.
> */
> - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
> + if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT6795 ||
> + data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
> regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD |
> F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR_MT8173;
> } else {
> @@ -1138,6 +1140,9 @@ static int mtk_iommu_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> case M4U_MT2712:
> p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
> break;
> + case M4U_MT6795:
> + p = "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg";
> + break;
> case M4U_MT8173:
> p = "mediatek,mt8173-infracfg";
> break;
> @@ -1404,6 +1409,18 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data
> mt6779_data = {
> .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {5}, {7, 8}, {10}, {9}},
> };
>
> +static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6795_data = {
> + .m4u_plat = M4U_MT6795,
> + .flags = HAS_4GB_MODE | HAS_BCLK | RESET_AXI |
> + HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
> + .inv_sel_reg = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
> + .banks_num = 1,
> + .banks_enable = {true},
> + .iova_region = single_domain,
> + .iova_region_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
> + .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}}, /* Linear mapping.
> */
> +};
This is nearly same with mt8173_data. mt8173 has one more larb than
mt6795, its larbid_remap is also ok for mt6795.
thus it looks we could use mt8173 as the backward compatible.
compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u",
"mediatek,mt8173-m4u";
After this, the only thing is about "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg". we have
to try again with mediatek,mt6795-infracfg after mediatek,mt8173-
infracfg fail. I think we should allow the backward case in 4GB mode
judgment if we have.
What's your opinion? or some other suggestion?
Thanks.
> +
> static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt8167_data = {
> .m4u_plat = M4U_MT8167,
> .flags = RESET_AXI | HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR |
> MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
> @@ -1515,6 +1532,7 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data
> mt8195_data_vpp = {
> static const struct of_device_id mtk_iommu_of_ids[] = {
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt2712-m4u", .data = &mt2712_data},
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6779-m4u", .data = &mt6779_data},
> + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u", .data = &mt6795_data},
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8167-m4u", .data = &mt8167_data},
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-m4u", .data = &mt8173_data},
> { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-m4u", .data = &mt8183_data},
Il 17/05/22 11:08, Yong Wu ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 17:14 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Add support for the M4Us found in the MT6795 Helio X10 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
>> angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>> index 71b2ace74cd6..3d802dd3f377 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>> @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
>> enum mtk_iommu_plat {
>> M4U_MT2712,
>> M4U_MT6779,
>> + M4U_MT6795,
>> M4U_MT8167,
>> M4U_MT8173,
>> M4U_MT8183,
>> @@ -953,7 +954,8 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct
>> mtk_iommu_data *data, unsigned int ban
>> * Global control settings are in bank0. May re-init these
>> global registers
>> * since no sure if there is bank0 consumers.
>> */
>> - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
>> + if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT6795 ||
>> + data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
>> regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD |
>> F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR_MT8173;
>> } else {
>> @@ -1138,6 +1140,9 @@ static int mtk_iommu_probe(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> case M4U_MT2712:
>> p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
>> break;
>> + case M4U_MT6795:
>> + p = "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg";
>> + break;
>> case M4U_MT8173:
>> p = "mediatek,mt8173-infracfg";
>> break;
>> @@ -1404,6 +1409,18 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data
>> mt6779_data = {
>> .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {5}, {7, 8}, {10}, {9}},
>> };
>>
>> +static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6795_data = {
>> + .m4u_plat = M4U_MT6795,
>> + .flags = HAS_4GB_MODE | HAS_BCLK | RESET_AXI |
>> + HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
>> + .inv_sel_reg = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
>> + .banks_num = 1,
>> + .banks_enable = {true},
>> + .iova_region = single_domain,
>> + .iova_region_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
>> + .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}}, /* Linear mapping.
>> */
>> +};
>
> This is nearly same with mt8173_data. mt8173 has one more larb than
> mt6795, its larbid_remap is also ok for mt6795.
>
I think that we should be explicit about the larbid_remap property,
since mt6795 has one less larb, we should explicitly say that like
I did there... that's only for human readability I admit ... but,
still, I wouldn't want to see people thinking that MT6795 has 6 LARBs
because they've read that larbid_remap having 6 entries.
> thus it looks we could use mt8173 as the backward compatible.
> compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u",
> "mediatek,mt8173-m4u";
>
> After this, the only thing is about "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg". we have
> to try again with mediatek,mt6795-infracfg after mediatek,mt8173-
> infracfg fail. I think we should allow the backward case in 4GB mode
> judgment if we have.
>
> What's your opinion? or some other suggestion?
> Thanks.
I know, I may have a plan for that, but I wanted to have a good reason to
propose such a thing, as if it's just about two SoCs needing that, there
would be no good reason to get things done differently.
...so, in order to provide a good cleanup, we have two possible roads to
follow here: either we add a generic "mediatek,infracfg" compatible to the
infra node (but I don't like that), or we can do it like it was previously
done in mtk-pm-domains.c (I prefer that approach):
iommu: iommu@somewhere {
... something ...
mediatek,infracfg = <&infracfg>;
};
infracfg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible(node, "mediatek,infracfg");
if (IS_ERR(infracfg)) {
/* try with the older way */
switch (...) {
case .... p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
... blah blah ...
}
/* legacy also failed, ouch! */
if (IS_ERR(infracfg))
return PTR_ERR(infracfg);
}
ret = regmap_read ... etc etc etc
Cheers,
Angelo
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 11:26 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 17/05/22 11:08, Yong Wu ha scritto:
> > On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 17:14 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> > wrote:
> > > Add support for the M4Us found in the MT6795 Helio X10 SoC.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
> > > angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
[...]
> > > +static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6795_data = {
> > > + .m4u_plat = M4U_MT6795,
> > > + .flags = HAS_4GB_MODE | HAS_BCLK | RESET_AXI |
> > > + HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
> > > + .inv_sel_reg = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
> > > + .banks_num = 1,
> > > + .banks_enable = {true},
> > > + .iova_region = single_domain,
> > > + .iova_region_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
> > > + .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}}, /* Linear mapping.
> > > */
> > > +};
> >
> > This is nearly same with mt8173_data. mt8173 has one more larb than
> > mt6795, its larbid_remap is also ok for mt6795.
> >
>
> I think that we should be explicit about the larbid_remap property,
> since mt6795 has one less larb, we should explicitly say that like
> I did there... that's only for human readability I admit ... but,
> still, I wouldn't want to see people thinking that MT6795 has 6 LARBs
> because they've read that larbid_remap having 6 entries.
In the linear mapping case, It does help. Strictly larbid_remap is two-
dimensional array now, It doesn't indicate how many larbs this SoC
has. If someone would like to know this, he could read the mtxxx-larb-
port.h. We also could document the larb numbers in the binding
for readability.
Anyway, It is not a big problem. A new structure is ok for me. I just
complain there are too many structures, specially in the internal
branch which contains many non-upstream SoCs, and there may be several
IOMMU HWs in one SoC. thus I'd like to group it personally.
>
> > thus it looks we could use mt8173 as the backward compatible.
> > compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u",
> > "mediatek,mt8173-m4u";
> >
> > After this, the only thing is about "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg". we
> > have
> > to try again with mediatek,mt6795-infracfg after mediatek,mt8173-
> > infracfg fail. I think we should allow the backward case in 4GB
> > mode
> > judgment if we have.
> >
> > What's your opinion? or some other suggestion?
> > Thanks.
>
> I know, I may have a plan for that, but I wanted to have a good
> reason to
> propose such a thing, as if it's just about two SoCs needing that,
> there
> would be no good reason to get things done differently.
>
> ...so, in order to provide a good cleanup, we have two possible roads
> to
> follow here: either we add a generic "mediatek,infracfg" compatible
> to the
> infra node (but I don't like that), or we can do it like it was
> previously
> done in mtk-pm-domains.c (I prefer that approach):
>
> iommu: iommu@somewhere {
> ... something ...
> mediatek,infracfg = <&infracfg>;
We like this too. But this was not suggested from Rob long before.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mediatek/20200715205120.GA778876@bogus/
> };
>
> infracfg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible(node,
> "mediatek,infracfg");
> if (IS_ERR(infracfg)) {
> /* try with the older way */
> switch (...) {
> case .... p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
> ... blah blah ...
> }
> /* legacy also failed, ouch! */
> if (IS_ERR(infracfg))
> return PTR_ERR(infracfg);
> }
>
> ret = regmap_read ... etc etc etc
>
> Cheers,
> Angelo
On 17/05/2022 11:26, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 17/05/22 11:08, Yong Wu ha scritto:
>> On Fri, 2022-05-13 at 17:14 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Add support for the M4Us found in the MT6795 Helio X10 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
>>> angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>>> index 71b2ace74cd6..3d802dd3f377 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/mtk_iommu.c
>>> @@ -157,6 +157,7 @@
>>> enum mtk_iommu_plat {
>>> M4U_MT2712,
>>> M4U_MT6779,
>>> + M4U_MT6795,
>>> M4U_MT8167,
>>> M4U_MT8173,
>>> M4U_MT8183,
>>> @@ -953,7 +954,8 @@ static int mtk_iommu_hw_init(const struct
>>> mtk_iommu_data *data, unsigned int ban
>>> * Global control settings are in bank0. May re-init these
>>> global registers
>>> * since no sure if there is bank0 consumers.
>>> */
>>> - if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
>>> + if (data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT6795 ||
>>> + data->plat_data->m4u_plat == M4U_MT8173) {
>>> regval = F_MMU_PREFETCH_RT_REPLACE_MOD |
>>> F_MMU_TF_PROT_TO_PROGRAM_ADDR_MT8173;
>>> } else {
>>> @@ -1138,6 +1140,9 @@ static int mtk_iommu_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> case M4U_MT2712:
>>> p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
>>> break;
>>> + case M4U_MT6795:
>>> + p = "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg";
>>> + break;
>>> case M4U_MT8173:
>>> p = "mediatek,mt8173-infracfg";
>>> break;
>>> @@ -1404,6 +1409,18 @@ static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data
>>> mt6779_data = {
>>> .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {5}, {7, 8}, {10}, {9}},
>>> };
>>> +static const struct mtk_iommu_plat_data mt6795_data = {
>>> + .m4u_plat = M4U_MT6795,
>>> + .flags = HAS_4GB_MODE | HAS_BCLK | RESET_AXI |
>>> + HAS_LEGACY_IVRP_PADDR | MTK_IOMMU_TYPE_MM,
>>> + .inv_sel_reg = REG_MMU_INV_SEL_GEN1,
>>> + .banks_num = 1,
>>> + .banks_enable = {true},
>>> + .iova_region = single_domain,
>>> + .iova_region_nr = ARRAY_SIZE(single_domain),
>>> + .larbid_remap = {{0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}}, /* Linear mapping.
>>> */
>>> +};
>>
>> This is nearly same with mt8173_data. mt8173 has one more larb than
>> mt6795, its larbid_remap is also ok for mt6795.
>>
>
> I think that we should be explicit about the larbid_remap property,
> since mt6795 has one less larb, we should explicitly say that like
> I did there... that's only for human readability I admit ... but,
> still, I wouldn't want to see people thinking that MT6795 has 6 LARBs
> because they've read that larbid_remap having 6 entries.
>
>> thus it looks we could use mt8173 as the backward compatible.
>> compatible = "mediatek,mt6795-m4u",
>> "mediatek,mt8173-m4u";
>>
>> After this, the only thing is about "mediatek,mt6795-infracfg". we have
>> to try again with mediatek,mt6795-infracfg after mediatek,mt8173-
>> infracfg fail. I think we should allow the backward case in 4GB mode
>> judgment if we have.
>>
>> What's your opinion? or some other suggestion?
>> Thanks.
>
> I know, I may have a plan for that, but I wanted to have a good reason to
> propose such a thing, as if it's just about two SoCs needing that, there
> would be no good reason to get things done differently.
>
> ...so, in order to provide a good cleanup, we have two possible roads to
> follow here: either we add a generic "mediatek,infracfg" compatible to the
> infra node (but I don't like that), or we can do it like it was previously
> done in mtk-pm-domains.c (I prefer that approach):
>
> iommu: iommu@somewhere {
> ... something ...
> mediatek,infracfg = <&infracfg>;
> };
>
> infracfg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_compatible(node, "mediatek,infracfg");
> if (IS_ERR(infracfg)) {
> /* try with the older way */
> switch (...) {
> case .... p = "mediatek,mt2712-infracfg";
> ... blah blah ...
> }
> /* legacy also failed, ouch! */
> if (IS_ERR(infracfg))
> return PTR_ERR(infracfg);
> }
>
> ret = regmap_read ... etc etc etc
>
I prefer that approach as well.
Regards,
Matthias
> Cheers,
> Angelo
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.