On 2023/4/25 0:52, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Changhuang, > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 03:00:10PM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote: >> On 2023/4/20 2:29, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 08:56:41PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote: >>>> Add AON PMU for StarFive JH7110 SoC, it can be used to turn on/off DPHY >>>> rx/tx power switch, and it don't need the properties of reg and >>>> interrupts. >>> >>> Putting this here since the DT guys are more likely to see it this way.. >>> Given how the implementation of the code driving this new >>> power-controller and the code driving the existing one are rather >>> different (you've basically re-written the entire driver in this series), >>> should the dphy driver implement its own power-controller? >>> >>> I know originally Changuang had tried something along those lines: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/5dc4ddc2-9d15-ebb2-38bc-8a544ca67e0d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> I see that that was shut down pretty much, partly due to the >>> non-standard property, hence this series adding the dphy power domain to >>> the existing driver. >>> >>> If it was done by looking up the pmu with a >>> of_find_compatible_node(NULL, "power-controller", "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu") >>> type thing, would that make sense? Although, maybe that is not a >>> question for you, and this series may actually have been better entirely >>> bundled with the dphy series so the whole thing can be reviewed as a >>> unit. I've added >>> >>> IOW, don't change this patch, or the dts patch, but move all of the >>> code back into the phy driver.. >>> >> >> Maybe this way can not do that? power domain is binding before driver probe, >> if I use "of_find_compatible_node" it phy(DPHY rx) probe. Maybe I can only operate >> this power switch in my phy(DPHY rx) driver, so the all patch of this series isn't >> make sense. > > I'm a wee bit lost here, as I unfortunately know little about how Linux > handles this power-domain stuff. If the DPHY tries to probe and some > pre-requisite does not yet exist, you can return -EPROBE_DEFER right? > > But I don't think that's what you are asking, as using > of_find_compatible_node() doesn't depend on there being a driver AFAIU. > >> In my opinion, We will also submit DPHY TX module later which use this series. >> Maybe this series should independent? > > Is the DPHY tx module a different driver to the rx one?> If yes, does it have a different bit you must set in the syscon? > Yes, DPHY tx module is a different driver to the DPHY rx. And I have do a different bit in PATCH 1: #define JH7110_PD_DPHY_TX 0 #define JH7110_PD_DPHY_RX 1 also in PATCH 5: static const struct jh71xx_domain_info jh7110_aon_power_domains[] = { [JH7110_PD_DPHY_TX] = { .name = "DPHY-TX", .bit = 30, }, [JH7110_PD_DPHY_RX] = { .name = "DPHY-RX", .bit = 31, }, }; > +CC Walker, do you have a register map for the jh7110? My TRM only says > what the registers are, but not the bits in them. Would make life easier > if I had that info. > > I'm fine with taking this code, I just want to make sure that the soc > driver doing this is the right thing to do. > I was kinda hoping that combining with the DPHY-rx series might allow > the PHY folk to spot if you are doing something here with the power > domains that doesn't make sense. > I asked about our soc colleagues. This syscon register, offset 0x00: bit[31] ---> dphy rx power switch bit[30] ---> dphy tx power switch other bits ---> Reserved >>> Sorry for not asking this sooner Changhuang, >>> Conor. >>> >>> (hopefully this didn't get sent twice, mutt complained of a bad email >>> addr during sending the first time) >>> >> >> I'm sorry for that, I will notice later. > > No, this was my mail client doing things that I was unsure of. You > didn't do anything wrong. > [...] >>>> - Walker Chen <walker.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> + - Changhuang Liang <changhuang.liang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> description: | >>>> StarFive JH7110 SoC includes support for multiple power domains which can be >>>> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ properties: >>>> compatible: >>>> enum: >>>> - starfive,jh7110-pmu >>>> + - starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu > > I was speaking to Rob about this over the weekend, he asked: > 'Why isn't "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" just the power-domain provider > itself?' Maybe not, this syscon only offset "0x00" configure power switch. other offset configure other functions, maybe not power, so this "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" not the power-domain itself. > Do we actually need to add a new binding for this at all? > > Cheers, > Conor. > Maybe this patch do that. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414024157.53203-6-xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> reg: >>>> maxItems: 1 >>>> @@ -29,10 +31,19 @@ properties: >>>>
