On 28/03/23 18:18, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 01:22:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 28/03/2023 12:48, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 09:23:04AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 27/03/2023 18:14, Sumit Gupta wrote:
For Tegra234, add the "nvidia,bpmp" property within the Memory
Controller (MC) node to reference BPMP node. This is needed in
the MC driver to pass the client info to the BPMP-FW when memory
interconnect support is available.
Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml
index 935d63d181d9..398d27bb2373 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml
@@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ properties:
"#interconnect-cells":
const: 1
+ nvidia,bpmp:
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
+ description: phandle of the node representing the BPMP
Why do you need this multiple times? Both in parent and all external-mc
children?
We've had nvidia,bpmp in the external memory controller node since
basically the beginning because we've always needed it there. For newer
chips we now also need it for the memory controller.
Ideally I think we would only have this in the MC and have the EMC
driver reference it via the EMC's parent (i.e. MC), but that would break
backwards-compatibility. Reaching into the EMC's DT node from the MC was
another option that we discussed internally, but it didn't look right
given how this is also needed by the MC.
One thing we could potentially do is deprecate the nvidia,bpmp phandle
in the EMC and only keep it as a fallback in the drivers in case the
parent MC doesn't find it's own in the DT.
Yes, deprecation would answer to my question.
Okay, great. Sumit, you can resolve this by adding a "deprecated: true"
to the EMC's nvidia,bpmp property schema. In the driver we can then try
to look at the MC's ->bpmp and if it exists reuse that. If it doesn't
exist, we can keep the existing lookup as a fallback for device trees
that haven't been updated yet.
We can't use MC's->bpmp in the EMC driver's probe as it will be NULL.
This is because MC driver uses "arch_initcall" and gets probed earlier
than BPMP. We can do this in another way as below change. This way we
can use the existing "nvidia,bpmp" property from EMC node and don't need
to move it to the MC node. Please share if this change sounds OK.
+++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186-emc.c
@@ static int tegra186_emc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
- if (tegra_bpmp_mrq_is_supported(emc->bpmp, MRQ_BWMGR_INT))
+ if (tegra_bpmp_mrq_is_supported(emc->bpmp, MRQ_BWMGR_INT)) {
mc->bwmgr_mrq_supported = true;
+ mc->bpmp = emc->bpmp;
+ }
}
return 0;
put_bpmp:
- tegra_bpmp_put(emc->bpmp);
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mc->bpmp))
+ tegra_bpmp_put(emc->bpmp);
return err;
}
static int tegra186_emc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
struct tegra186_emc *emc = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
+ struct tegra_mc *mc = dev_get_drvdata(emc->dev->parent);
debugfs_remove_recursive(emc->debugfs.root);
- tegra_bpmp_put(emc->bpmp);
+ if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mc->bpmp))
+ tegra_bpmp_put(emc->bpmp);
return 0;
}
