Hi Rob,
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:23:44PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> >> .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>> >> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt
>> >> index 4971f03f0b33..bd9a3a267caf 100644
>> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt
>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/arm-mhu.txt
>> >> @@ -10,21 +10,42 @@ STAT register and the remote clears it after having read the data.
>> >> The last channel is specified to be a 'Secure' resource, hence can't be
>> >> used by Linux running NS.
>> >>
>> >> +The MHU drives the interrupt signal using a 32-bit register, with all
>> >> +32-bits logically ORed together. It provides a set of registers to
>> >> +enable software to set, clear and check the status of each of the bits
>> >> +of this register independently. The use of 32 bits per interrupt line
>> >> +enables software to provide more information about the source of the
>> >> +interrupt. For example, each bit of the register can be associated with
>> >> +a type of event that can contribute to raising the interrupt. Each of
>> >> +the 32-bits can be used as "doorbell" to alert the remote processor.
>> >> +
>> >> Mailbox Device Node:
>> >> ====================
>> >>
>> >> Required properties:
>> >> --------------------
>> >> -- compatible: Shall be "arm,mhu" & "arm,primecell"
>> >> +- compatible: Shall be "arm,primecell" and one of the below:
>> >> + "arm,mhu" - if the controller doesn't support
>> >> + doorbell model
>> >> + "arm,mhu-doorbell" - if the controller supports
>> >> + doorbell model
>> >> - reg: Contains the mailbox register address range (base
>> >> address and length)
>> >> -- #mbox-cells Shall be 1 - the index of the channel needed.
>> >> +- #mbox-cells Shall be 1 - the index of the channel needed when
>> >> + compatible is "arm,mhu"
>> >> + Shall be 2 - the index of the channel needed, and
>> >> + the index of the doorbell bit with the channel when
>> >> + compatible is "arm,mhu-doorbell"
>> >> - interrupts: Contains the interrupt information corresponding to
>> >> - each of the 3 links of MHU.
>> >> + each of the 3 physical channels of MHU namely low
>> >> + priority non-secure, high priority non-secure and
>> >> + secure channels.
>> >>
>> >> Example:
>> >> --------
>> >>
>> >> +1. Controller which doesn't support doorbells
>> >> +
>> >> mhu: mailbox@2b1f0000 {
>> >> #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> >> compatible = "arm,mhu", "arm,primecell";
>> >> @@ -41,3 +62,22 @@ used by Linux running NS.
>> >> reg = <0 0x2e000000 0x4000>;
>> >> mboxes = <&mhu 1>; /* HP-NonSecure */
>> >> };
>> >> +
>> >> +2. Controller which supports doorbells
>> >> +
>> >> + mhu: mailbox@2b1f0000 {
>> >> + #mbox-cells = <2>;
>> >> + compatible = "arm,mhu-doorbell", "arm,primecell";
>> >> + reg = <0 0x2b1f0000 0x1000>;
>> >> + interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP-NonSecure */
>> >> + <0 35 4>, /* HP-NonSecure */
>> >> + <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
>> >> + clocks = <&clock 0 2 1>;
>> >> + clock-names = "apb_pclk";
>> >> + };
>> >> +
>> >> + mhu_client: scb@2e000000 {
>> >> + compatible = "arm,scpi";
>> >> + reg = <0 0x2e000000 0x200>;
>> >> + mboxes = <&mhu 1 4>; /* HP-NonSecure 5th doorbell bit */
>> >> + };
>> >>
>> > Every MHU controller can by driven as "arm,mhu-doorbell" or "arm,mhu"
>> > equally fine. So you are basically smuggling a s/w feature into DT.
>> >
>>
>> I disagree, the spec clearly says each bit can be used for different
>> event and hence we need a way to specify that in DT when used as doorbell.
>
> I think the point is that you should not continue to use both. The
>
FYKI my point (here and in other threads) is that current MHU
driver/bindings can very well support Sudeep's usecase.
> single cell usage should be deprecated. Maybe you'll have to encode the
> 2nd cell when not used as 0 means bit 0?
>
> Arguably, you don't even need a new compatible. #mbox-cells tells you
> whether to use the old or new binding. I'm fine either way though.
>
In mailbox terminology, there is a channel and command(s) that we
send/recv over it. OOB data passing is optional.
MHU driver accepts a command as a u32. Sudeep's usecase has commands
of the form of BIT(x) ... an instance of u32.
Instead of having his client driver pass BIT(x) like other MHU
clients, he wants to modify the driver and bindings to specify 'x' via
second cell of mboxes. That would have made sense (and already
implemented) if the controller could send only 1 bit at a time and
every client/protocol used exactly 1 command - both of which are not
true.
I even offered Sudeep to share his client driver and I'll adapt it for
him, but her refuses to either see my point or share his code.
Cheers!
--
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
