Am Donnerstag, den 23.06.2016, 09:28 -0500 schrieb Andrew F. Davis: > On 06/23/2016 04:05 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, den 22.06.2016, 14:46 -0500 schrieb Andrew F. Davis: > > [...] > >>>> + depends on HAS_IOMEM > >>>> + select MFD_SYSCON > >>>> + help > >>>> + This enables the reset driver support for TI devices with > >>>> + memory-mapped reset registers as part of a syscon device node. If > >>>> + you wish to use the reset framework for such memory-mapped devices, > >>>> + say Y here. Otherwise, say N. > >>> > >>> Actually, do you need the user configurable option at all? > >> > >> I'm not sure, right now it is selected by other things, but that is true > >> for much of Kconfig, it is not platform dependent so it doesn't need to > >> only be enabled by arch, it probably isn't hurting anything to leave it? > > > > No, that's okay. So the intention is to make it possible to enable it > > for COMPILE_TESTs on architectures other than TI? > > I was thinking more that it should be usable on non-TI architectures and > so can be user enabled if needed. Those architectures could also just select it, then. Having the option might improve discoverability though. [...] > > So far, I have seen the following variants. Depending on the hardware, a > > reset could be: > > - asserted by setting a bit > > - asserted by clearing a bit > > - deasserted by clearing/setting the same bit > > - deasserted by setting/clearing the same bit in another register > > - triggered to be asserted/deasserted automatically with some specific > > timing that the hardware knows about (in that case the manual > > assert/deassert is not available) > > The status of the reset line could be read via > > - the same bit that is used to assert/deassert > > - the same bit in another register > > - not at all > > > > What I've not yet seen but surely exists somewhere is the case where > > assert/deassert/status bits are at different bit positions either in the > > same register or in different registers. > > Exactly why I was thinking having a node for the resets would be more > future proof, we could add more properties later: > > pscrst-dsp: dsp { > reset-control = <0xa3c 8 RESET_ASSERT_CLEAR>; > reset-status = <0x83c 8 RESET_ASSERT_CLEAR>; > + reset-deassert = <0x840 3 RESET_ASSERT_SET>; > + reset-toggle-time-ms = <20>; > }; > > While a fixed length array does make for a more condensed binding we > don't get much flexibility. > > What we could also do is have a longer array then use macros to trim it > down for simple cases: > > reset-bits = < > SINGLE_BIT_RESET(0xa3c, 8) > SINGLE_BIT_RESET(0xa40, 7) > SINGLE_BIT_RESET(0xa44, 6) > >; I think there has been opposition in the past against hiding things more complex than a single value behind macros. > Each real entry could have 9 fields that the macro would expand into: > (assert reg) (assert bit) (assert flag) > (deassert reg) (deassert bit) (deassert flag) > (status reg) (status bit) (status flag) > > This would be able to handle all of the above cases except the timing > one, that case can always be handled by a dedicated driver for that system. How about seven: (assert reg) (assert bit) (deassert reg) (deassert bit) (status reg) (status bit) (flags) reset-bits = < 0xa3c 8 0xa3c 8 0x83c 8 (ASSERT_CLEAR|DEASSERT_SET|STATUS_SET) >; > My goal here, I would like to believe, aligns with the goals of DT in > general, I would like to see one kernel work on many platforms without > having to compile-in a bunch of SoC specific info. Some SoCs will need > their own reset driver for when they do something unique (like this > reset driver I will post next cycle which sends a message to a power > management chip for its resets: > http://git.ti.com/gitweb/?p=ti-linux-kernel/ti-linux-kernel.git;a=blob;f=drivers/reset/reset-ti-sci.c;h=3636dc176c8b5c4449eefc1fe13df7b912cec73e;hb=refs/heads/ti-lsk-linux-4.4.y > ) > but I see no reason a bunch of different drivers for simple register bit > resets with the only difference being a #define offset. I hope that this > effort will get ahead of these drivers and reduce the maintenance burden > for you. The problem of reducing the amount of simple drivers is completely orthogonal to agreeing on a fitting DT binding. A common driver could just as well have static syscon_reset_control arrays per compatible compiled in. > So how much is handled by this driver is up to you, (hopefully without > trying to handle every possible case :)). It's also up to the DT maintainers to approve the bindings. I have no delusions that we have to find a compromise between driver/binding complexity and the number of supported common cases. The reason I find it difficult to make a decision is I don't feel like I have enough data. Should we support separate status reg? Obviously, you need it. Separate deassert reg? Questionable. Those devices usually have set/clear registers dedicated to resets and as such are not a good fit for this driver anyway. assert/deassert/status bits at different positions? Maybe not even needed. Support for triggered, self-clearing resets? Maybe better handled by a different driver, too. regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html