lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 02/11] mfd: Add support for Kontron sl28cpld management controller
    Am 2020-06-08 20:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
    > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
    >
    >> Am 2020-06-08 12:02, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
    >> > +Cc: some Intel people WRT our internal discussion about similar
    >> > problem and solutions.
    >> >
    >> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
    >> > > On Sat, 06 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
    >> > > > Am 2020-06-06 13:46, schrieb Mark Brown:
    >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:07:36PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
    >> > > > > > Am 2020-06-05 12:50, schrieb Mark Brown:
    >> >
    >> > ...
    >> >
    >> > > Right. I'm suggesting a means to extrapolate complex shared and
    >> > > sometimes intertwined batches of register sets to be consumed by
    >> > > multiple (sub-)devices spanning different subsystems.
    >> > >
    >> > > Actually scrap that. The most common case I see is a single Regmap
    >> > > covering all child-devices.
    >> >
    >> > Yes, because often we need a synchronization across the entire address
    >> > space of the (parent) device in question.
    >> >
    >> > > It would be great if there was a way in
    >> > > which we could make an assumption that the entire register address
    >> > > space for a 'tagged' (MFD) device is to be shared (via Regmap) between
    >> > > each of the devices described by its child-nodes. Probably by picking
    >> > > up on the 'simple-mfd' compatible string in the first instance.
    >> > >
    >> > > Rob, is the above something you would contemplate?
    >> > >
    >> > > Michael, do your register addresses overlap i.e. are they intermingled
    >> > > with one another? Do multiple child devices need access to the same
    >> > > registers i.e. are they shared?
    >>
    >> No they don't overlap, expect for maybe the version register, which is
    >> just there once and not per function block.
    >
    > Then what's stopping you having each device Regmap their own space?

    Because its just one I2C device, AFAIK thats not possible, right?

    > The issues I wish to resolve using 'simple-mfd' are when sub-devices
    > register maps overlap and intertwine.
    >
    >> > > > > > But, there is more in my driver:
    >> > > > > > (1) there is a version check
    >> > >
    >> > > If we can rid the Regmap dependency, then creating an entire driver to
    >> > > conduct a version check is unjustifiable. This could become an inline
    >> > > function which is called by each of the sub-devices instead, for
    >> > > example.
    >>
    >> sounds good to me. (although there would then be a probe fail per
    >> sub-device
    >> if the version is not supported)
    >
    > I don't see an issue with that. I would put that check inside a
    > shared call though, complete with support for locking.
    >
    >> > > > > > (2) there is another function for which there is no suitable linux
    >> > > > > > subsystem I'm aware of and thus which I'd like to us sysfs
    >> > > > > > attributes for: This controller supports 16 non-volatile
    >> > > > > > configuration bits. (this is still TBD)
    >> > >
    >> > > There is a place for everything in Linux.
    >> > >
    >> > > What do these bits configure?
    >>
    >> - hardware strappings which have to be there before the board powers
    >> up,
    >> like clocking mode for different SerDes settings
    >> - "keep-in-reset" bits for onboard peripherals if you want to save
    >> power
    >> - disable watchdog bits (there is a watchdog which is active right
    >> from
    >> the start and supervises the bootloader start and switches to
    >> failsafe
    >> mode if it wasn't successfully started)
    >> - special boot modes, like eMMC, etc.
    >>
    >> Think of it as a 16bit configuration word.
    >
    > And you wish for users to be able to view these at run-time?

    And esp. change them.

    > Can they adapt any of them on-the-fly or will the be RO?

    They are R/W but only will only affect the board behavior after a reset.

    -michael

    >
    >> > > > > TBH I'd also say that the enumeration of the subdevices for this
    >> > > > > device should be in the device rather than the DT, they don't
    >> > > > > seem to be things that exist outside of this one device.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > We're going circles here, formerly they were enumerated in the MFD.
    >> > > > Yes, they are devices which aren't likely be used outside a
    >> > > > "sl28cpld", but there might there might be other versions of the
    >> > > > sl28cpld with other components on different base addresses. I
    >> > > > don't care if they are enumerated in DT or MFD, actually, I'd
    >> > > > prefer the latter. _But_ I would like to have the device tree
    >> > > > properties for its subdevices, e.g. the ones for the watchdog or
    >> > > > whatever components there might be in the future.
    >> > >
    >> > > [...]
    >> > >
    >> > > > MFD core can
    >> > > > match a device tree node today; but only one per unique compatible
    >> > > > string. So what should I use to differentiate the different
    >> > > > subdevices?
    >> > >
    >> > > Right. I have been aware of this issue. The only suitable solution
    >> > > to this would be to match on 'reg'.
    >>
    >> see below (1)
    >>
    >> > >
    >> > > FYI: I plan to fix this.
    >> > >
    >> > > If your register map needs to change, then I suggest that this is
    >> > > either a new device or at least a different version of the device and
    >> > > would also have to be represented as different (sub-)mfd_cell.
    >> > >
    >> > > > Rob suggested the internal offset, which I did here.
    >> > >
    >> > > FWIW, I don't like this idea. DTs should not have to be modified
    >> > > (either in the first instance or subsequently) or specifically
    >> > > designed to patch inadequacies in any given OS.
    >>
    >> How does (1) play together with this? What do you propose the "reg"
    >> property should contain?
    >
    > Whatever is in the 'reg' property contained in the Device Tree node.
    > Either the full address or an offset would be suitable.
    >
    > Caveat: All this thinking has been done on-the-fly. I would need to
    > look at some examples of existing devices and start coding before I
    > could really think the solution through.
    >
    > Happy to discuss and/or take recommendations though.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-06-08 23:10    [W:2.825 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site