fsl upm, nand driver and MPC8360E-RDK as its first user

Here are few routines needed to manage FSL UPMs. It doesn't include UPM programming, yet. So far u-boot manages to program everything.

Signed-off-by Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]>

---
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig          |    3 +
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile  |    1 +
 arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c |   65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h |   90 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c
 create mode 100644 include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h

arch/powerpc/Kconfig +0 -0

index a4fa173..aab8106 100644

arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c new file +5 -0

+int fsl_upm_get_for(struct device_node *node, const char *name,
+		    struct fsl_upm *upm)
+{
+	int ret;
+	struct device_node *lbus;

Quoted 10 lines · On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:39:25 +0300 Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]>…

arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c new file +9 -0

+int fsl_upm_get_for(struct device_node *node, const char *name,
+		    struct fsl_upm *upm)
+{
+	int ret;
+	struct device_node *lbus;
+	struct resource lbc_res;
+	ptrdiff_t mxmr_offs;
+
+	lbus = of_get_parent(node);

arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c line 34

Quoted 6 lines

arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_upm.c new file +6 -0

+	if (!lbus) {
+		pr_err("FSL UPM: can't get parent local bus node\n");
+		return -ENOENT;
+	}
+
+	ret = of_address_to_resource(lbus, 0, &lbc_res);

of_node_put(lbus) as of_get_parent() gets a reference.

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h line 51

Quoted 3 lines

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h new file +3 -0

+static inline void fsl_upm_start_pattern(struct fsl_upm *upm, u32 pat_offset)
+{
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&upm_lock, upm_lock_flags);

I may be wrong, but don't we need the "flags" argument to spin_lock_irqsave to be on the stack? And the save and restore to be in the same function?

Quoted 7 lines

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h line 51

Quoted 3 lines

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h new file +3 -0

+static inline void fsl_upm_start_pattern(struct fsl_upm *upm, u32 pat_offset)
+{
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&upm_lock, upm_lock_flags);

I may be wrong, but don't we need the "flags" argument to spin_lock_irqsave to be on the stack? And the save and restore to be in the same function?

In general case, yes. Here, not exactly. We have to grab a lock at the start(), do runs(), and release a lock at the end():

On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 02:59:35PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[..]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 7 lines

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h line 51

Quoted 3 lines

include/asm-powerpc/fsl_upm.h new file +3 -0

+static inline void fsl_upm_start_pattern(struct fsl_upm *upm, u32 pat_offset)
+{
+	spin_lock_irqsave(&upm_lock, upm_lock_flags);

I may be wrong, but don't we need the "flags" argument to spin_lock_irqsave to be on the stack? And the save and restore to be in the same function?

Quoted 2 lines

In general case, yes. Here, not exactly. We have to grab a lock at the start(), do runs(), and release a lock at the end():

Ugh, that's stupid of course. flags are indeed should be on the stack. So, what I can use here is a mutex, and thus forbid using these routines from the isrs. Another option would be disabling interrupts and getting plain lock, but that is ugly. So will use a mutex.

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c new file +13 -0

+static int __devinit upm_chip_probe(struct of_device *ofdev,
+				    const struct of_device_id *ofid)
+{
+	struct upm_data *ud;
+	struct resource io_res;
+	const u32 *prop;
+	int ret;
+	int size;
+
+	ud = kzalloc(sizeof(*ud), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ud)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+

Quoted 18 lines · On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:41:30 +0300 Anton Vorontsov <[email protected]>…

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c new file +17 -0

+static int __devinit upm_chip_probe(struct of_device *ofdev,
+				    const struct of_device_id *ofid)
+{
+	struct upm_data *ud;
+	struct resource io_res;
+	const u32 *prop;
+	int ret;
+	int size;
+
+	ud = kzalloc(sizeof(*ud), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ud)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ret = of_address_to_resource(ofdev->node, 0, &io_res);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "can't get IO base\n");
+		goto err;

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c line 184

Quoted 6 lines

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c new file +6 -0

+	}
+
+	prop = of_get_property(ofdev->node, "width", &size);
+	if (!prop || size != sizeof(u32)) {
+		dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "can't get chip width\n");
+		goto err;

Here ret is 0, is that the correct return code?

Quoted 5 lines

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c new file +5 -0

+	ud->rnb_gpio = of_get_gpio(ofdev->node, 0);
+	if (ud->rnb_gpio >= 0) {
+		ret = gpio_request(ud->rnb_gpio, ofdev->dev.bus_id);
+		if (ret) {
+			dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "can't request RNB gpio\n");

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c line 227

Quoted 6 lines

drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_upm.c new file +6 -0

+			goto err;
+		}
+		gpio_direction_input(ud->rnb_gpio);
+	} else if (ud->rnb_gpio == -EINVAL) {
+		dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "specified RNB gpio is invalid\n");
+		goto err;

Again ret is 0 here.