Hi Martin, Dilip,
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:51:48PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Dilip,
>
> (sorry for the late reply)
Same, sorry for the delay.
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:38 AM Dilip Kota <eswara.kota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [...]
> > The major difference between the vrx200 and lgm is:
> > 1.) RCU in vrx200 is having multiple register regions wheres RCU in lgm
> > has one single register region.
> > 2.) Register offsets and bit offsets are different.
> >
> > So enhancing the intel-reset-syscon.c to provide compatibility/support
> > for vrx200.
> > Please check the below dtsi binding proposal and let me know your view.
> >
> > rcu0:reset-controller@00000000 {
> > compatible= "intel,rcu-lgm";
> > reg = <0x0000000 0x80000>, <reg_set2 size>, <reg_set3 size>,
> > <reg_set4 size>;
> I'm not sure that I understand what are reg_set2/3/4 for
> the first resource (0x80000 at 0x0) already covers the whole LGM RCU,
> so what is the purpose of the other register resources
>
> > intel,global-reset = <0x10 30>;
> > #reset-cells = <3>;
> > };
> >
> > "#reset-cells":
> > const:3
> > description: |
> > The 1st cell is the reset register offset.
> > The 2nd cell is the reset set bit offset.
> > The 3rd cell is the reset status bit offset.
> I think this will work fine for VRX200 (and even older SoCs)
> as you have described in your previous emails we can determine the
> status offset from the reset offset using a simple if/else
>
> for LGM I like your initial suggestion with #reset-cells = <2> because
> it's easier to read and write.
>
> > Reset driver takes care of parsing the register address "reg" as per the
> > ".data" structure in struct of_device_id.
> > Reset driver takes care of traversing the status register offset.
> the differentiation between two and three #reset-cells can also happen
> based on the struct of_device_id:
> - the LGM implementation would simply also use the reset bit as status
> bit (only two cells are needed)
> - the implementation for earlier SoCs would parse the third cell and
> use that as status bit
>
> Philipp, can you please share your opinion on how to move forward with
> the reset-intel driver from this series?
That all sounds reasonable for VRX200/LGM to me.
> because the register layout was greatly simplified for the newer SoCs
> (for which there is reset-intel) compared to the older ones
> (reset-lantiq).
> Dilip's suggestion (in my own words) is that you take his new
> reset-intel driver, then we will work on porting reset-lantiq over to
> that so in the end we can drop the reset-lantiq driver.
Just to be sure, you are suggesting to add support for the current
lantiq,reset binding to the reset-intel driver at a later point? I
see no reason not to do that, but I'm also not quite sure what the
benefit will be over just keeping reset-lantiq as is?
> This approach means more work for me (as I am probably the one who
> then has to do the work to port reset-lantiq over to reset-intel).
More work than what alternative?
> I'm happy to do that work if you think that it's worth following this
> approach. So I want your opinion on this before I spend any effort on
> porting reset-lantiq over to reset-intel.
Reset drivers are typically so simple, I'm not quite sure whether it is
worth to integrate multiple drivers if it complicates matters too much.
In this case though I expect it would just be adding support for a
custom .of_xlate and lantiq specific register property parsing?
regards
Philipp
