[PATCH v2] soc: nuvoton: Add SoC info driver for WPCM450
Jonathan Neuschäfer
j.neuschaefer at gmx.net
Fri Apr 15 03:02:27 AEST 2022
On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 07:55:09PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Jonathan,
>
>
> Thank you for your patch.
>
> Am 09.04.22 um 19:33 schrieb Jonathan Neuschäfer:
> > Add a SoC information driver for Nuvoton WPCM450 SoCs. It provides
> > information such as the SoC revision.
>
> Maybe add an example command, how to read the model and revision.
Will do.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Neuschäfer <j.neuschaefer at gmx.net>
> > Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel at jms.id.au>
> > ---
[...]
> > +#define GCR_PDID 0
> > +#define PDID_CHIP(x) ((x) & 0x00ffffff)
> > +#define CHIP_WPCM450 0x926450
> > +#define PDID_REV(x) ((x) >> 24)
> > +
> > +struct revision {
> > + u8 number;
>
> Can this be just be `unsigned int`s
It could be, but it's unnecessary because I'm dealing with a 8-bit value
here.
The same amount of space is used in the struct whether I declare the
value as unsigned int or as u8, but with u8 it's clearer that it's
really (always) just an 8-bit value.
>
> > + const char *name;
> > +};
> > +
> > +const struct revision revisions[] __initconst = {
Unrelated to your comments, I noticed that this table can and should be
declared static.
> > + { 0x00, "Z1" },
> > + { 0x03, "Z2" },
> > + { 0x04, "Z21" },
> > + { 0x08, "A1" },
> > + { 0x09, "A2" },
> > + { 0x0a, "A3" },
> > + {}
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const char * __init get_revision(u8 rev)
> > +{
> > + int i;
>
> I’d do `unsigned int`, though it does not make a difference in the end
> result.
To avoid unexpected silent truncation that sort of makes sense.
>
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; revisions[i].name; i++)
> > + if (revisions[i].number == rev)
> > + return revisions[i].name;
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int __init wpcm450_soc_init(void)
> > +{
[...]
> > +
> > + revision = get_revision(PDID_REV(pdid));
>
> The signature of `get_revision()` is u8, but you pass u32, if I am not
> mistaken.
The truncation to u8 is fine in this case, because PDID_REV extracts an
8 bit value and the upper 24 bits of the result of PDID_REV are thus
always already zero.
>
> > + if (!revision) {
> > + pr_warn("Unknown chip revision in GCR.PDID: 0x%02x\n", PDID_REV(pdid));
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
[...]
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel at molgen.mpg.de>
Thank you!
Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20220414/f1bcfd3a/attachment.sig>
More information about the openbmc
mailing list