Hi,
Ran Wang <ran.wang_1@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > >> >> > /* Global Debug Queue/FIFO Space Available Register */
>> >> > >> >> > #define DWC3_GDBGFIFOSPACE_NUM(n) ((n) & 0x1f)
>> >> > >> >> > #define DWC3_GDBGFIFOSPACE_TYPE(n) (((n) << 5) & 0x1e0)
>> >> > >> >> > @@ -859,6 +867,7 @@ struct dwc3_scratchpad_array {
>> >> > >> >> > * 3 - Reserved
>> >> > >> >> > * @imod_interval: set the interrupt moderation interval in 250ns
>> >> > >> >> > * increments or 0 to disable.
>> >> > >> >> > + * @dma_coherent: set if enable dma-coherent.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> you're not enabling dma coherency, you're enabling cache snooping.
>> >> > >> >> And this property should describe that. Also, keep in mind
>> >> > >> >> that different devices may want different cache types for
>> >> > >> >> each of those fields, so your property would have to be a lot
>> >> > >> >> more complex. Something
>> >> > like:
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> snps,cache-type = <foobar "cacheable">, <baz "cacheable">, ...
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> Then driver would have to parse this properly to setup GSBUSCFG0.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > According to the DesignWare Cores SuperSpeed USB 3.0 Controller
>> >> > > Databook (v2.60a), it has described Type Bit Assignments for all
>> >> > > supported
>> >> > master bus type:
>> >> > > AHB, AXI3, AXI4 and Native. I found the bit definition are
>> >> > > different among
>> >> > them.
>> >> > > So, for the example you gave above, feel a little bit confused.
>> >> > > Did you mean:
>> >> > > snps,cache-type = <DATA_RD "write allocate">, <DESC_RD
>> >> > > "cacheable">, <DATA_WR "bufferable">, <DESC_WR "read allocate">
>> >> >
>> >> > yeah, something like that.
>> >>
>> >> I think DATA_RD should be a macro, right? So, where I can put its define?
>> >> Create a dwc3.h in include/dt-bindings/usb/ ?
>> >
>> > Could you please give me some advice here? I'd like to prepare next
>> > version patch after getting this settled.
>> >
>> >> Another question about this remain open is: DWC3 data book's Table
>> >> 6-5 Cache Type Bit Assignments show that bits definition will differ
>> >> per MBUS_TYPEs as
>> >> below:
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> MBUS_TYPE| bit[3] |bit[2] |bit[1] |bit[0]
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> AHB |Cacheable |Bufferable |Privilegge |Data
>> >> AXI3 |Write Allocate|Read Allocate|Cacheable |Bufferable
>> >> AXI4 |Allocate Other|Allocate |Modifiable |Bufferable
>> >> AXI4 |Other Allocate|Allocate |Modifiable |Bufferable
>> >> Native |Same as AXI |Same as AXI |Same as AXI|Same as AXI
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Note: The AHB, AXI3, AXI4, and PCIe busses use different names for
>> >> certain signals, which have the same meaning:
>> >> Bufferable = Posted
>> >> Cacheable = Modifiable = Snoop (negation of No Snoop)
>> >>
>> >> For Layerscape SoCs, MBUS_TYPE is AXI3. So I am not sure how to use
>> >> snps,cache-type = <DATA_RD "write allocate">, to cover all MBUS_TYPE?
>> >> (you can notice that AHB and AXI3's cacheable are on different bit)
>> >> Or I just need to handle AXI3 case?
>> >
>> > Also on this open. Thank you in advance.
>>
>> You could pass two strings and let the driver process them. Something
>> like:
>>
>> snps,cache_type = <"data_wr" "write allocate">, <"desc_rd"
>> "cacheable">...
>>
>> And so on. The only thing missing is for the mbus_type to be known by the driver.
>> Is that something we can figure out on any of the HWPARAMS registers or does
>> it have to be told explicitly?
>
> I have checked Layerscape Reference manual, HWPARAMS0~8 doesn't contain mbus_type
> Info, and I didn't know where have declared it explicitly.
>
>> Another option would be to pass a string followed by one hex digit for the bits:
>>
>> snps,cache_type = <"data_wr" 0x8>, <"desc_rd" 0x2>...;
>>
>> Then we don't need to describe mbus_type since the bits are what matters.
>
> Yes, it's also what we prefer to use, it will be more flexible, I can add above Table
> 6-5 Cache Type Bit Assignments in binding to help user decide which value they
> would use.
>
> I would submit another version of patch for further review, thank you very much.
cool, thanks
--
balbi
