On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 5:16 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/04/2024 17:03, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 11:45 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 25/04/2024 11:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>> On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 9:52 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 24/04/2024 19:04, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>> On Wed Apr 24, 2024 at 6:26 PM CEST, Thierry Reding wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon Apr 22, 2024 at 9:02 AM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>>> On 12/04/2024 15:05, Sumit Gupta wrote: > >>>>>>>> MC SID and Broadbast channel register access is restricted for Guest VM. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Broadcast > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Make both the regions as optional for SoC's from Tegra186 onwards. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> onward? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tegra MC driver will skip access to the restricted registers from Guest > >>>>>>>> if the respective regions are not present in the memory-controller node > >>>>>>>> of Guest DT. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Suggested-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> .../nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml | 95 ++++++++++--------- > >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>>>>> index 935d63d181d9..e0bd013ecca3 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>>>>> @@ -34,11 +34,11 @@ properties: > >>>>>>>> - nvidia,tegra234-mc > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> reg: > >>>>>>>> - minItems: 6 > >>>>>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>>>>> maxItems: 18 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> reg-names: > >>>>>>>> - minItems: 6 > >>>>>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>>>>> maxItems: 18 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> interrupts: > >>>>>>>> @@ -151,12 +151,13 @@ allOf: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> reg-names: > >>>>>>>> items: > >>>>>>>> - - const: sid > >>>>>>>> - - const: broadcast > >>>>>>>> - - const: ch0 > >>>>>>>> - - const: ch1 > >>>>>>>> - - const: ch2 > >>>>>>>> - - const: ch3 > >>>>>>>> + enum: > >>>>>>>> + - sid > >>>>>>>> + - broadcast > >>>>>>>> + - ch0 > >>>>>>>> + - ch1 > >>>>>>>> + - ch2 > >>>>>>>> + - ch3 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I understand why sid and broadcast are becoming optional, but why order > >>>>>>> of the rest is now fully flexible? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The reason why the order of the rest doesn't matter is because we have > >>>>>> both reg and reg-names properties and so the order in which they appear > >>>>>> in the list doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the > >>>>>> entries of the reg and reg-names properties match. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> This does not even make sid/broadcast optional, but ch0! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yeah, this ends up making all entries optional, which isn't what we > >>>>>> want. I don't know of a way to accurately express this in json-schema, > >>>>>> though. Do you? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If not, then maybe we need to resort to something like this and also > >>>>>> mention explicitly in some comment that it is sid and broadcast that are > >>>>>> optional. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually, here's another variant that is a bit closer to what we want: > >>>>> > >>>>> --- >8 --- > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>> index 935d63d181d9..86f1475926e4 100644 > >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/memory-controllers/nvidia,tegra186-mc.yaml > >>>>> @@ -34,11 +34,11 @@ properties: > >>>>> - nvidia,tegra234-mc > >>>>> > >>>>> reg: > >>>>> - minItems: 6 > >>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>> maxItems: 18 > >>>>> > >>>>> reg-names: > >>>>> - minItems: 6 > >>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>> maxItems: 18 > >>>>> > >>>>> interrupts: > >>>>> @@ -146,17 +146,21 @@ allOf: > >>>>> then: > >>>>> properties: > >>>>> reg: > >>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>> maxItems: 6 > >>>>> description: 5 memory controller channels and 1 for stream-id registers > >>>>> > >>>>> reg-names: > >>>>> - items: > >>>>> - - const: sid > >>>>> - - const: broadcast > >>>>> - - const: ch0 > >>>>> - - const: ch1 > >>>>> - - const: ch2 > >>>>> - - const: ch3 > >>>>> + anyOf: > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + enum: [ sid, broadcast, ch0, ch1, ch2, ch3 ] > >>>>> + uniqueItems: true > >>>>> + minItems: 6 > >>>>> + > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + enum: [ ch0, ch1, ch2, ch3 ] > >>>>> + uniqueItems: true > >>>>> + minItems: 4 > >>>>> > >>>>> - if: > >>>>> properties: > >>>>> @@ -165,29 +169,22 @@ allOf: > >>>>> then: > >>>>> properties: > >>>>> reg: > >>>>> - minItems: 18 > >>>>> + minItems: 16 > >>>>> description: 17 memory controller channels and 1 for stream-id registers > >>>>> > >>>>> reg-names: > >>>>> - items: > >>>>> - - const: sid > >>>>> - - const: broadcast > >>>>> - - const: ch0 > >>>>> - - const: ch1 > >>>>> - - const: ch2 > >>>>> - - const: ch3 > >>>>> - - const: ch4 > >>>>> - - const: ch5 > >>>>> - - const: ch6 > >>>>> - - const: ch7 > >>>>> - - const: ch8 > >>>>> - - const: ch9 > >>>>> - - const: ch10 > >>>>> - - const: ch11 > >>>>> - - const: ch12 > >>>>> - - const: ch13 > >>>>> - - const: ch14 > >>>>> - - const: ch15 > >>>>> + anyOf: > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + enum: [ sid, broadcast, ch0, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, ch6, ch7, > >>>>> + ch8, ch9, ch10, ch11, ch12, ch13, ch14, ch15 ] > >>>>> + minItems: 18 > >>>>> + uniqueItems: true > >>>>> + > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + enum: [ ch0, ch1, ch2, ch3, ch4, ch5, ch6, ch7, ch8, ch9, ch10, > >>>>> + ch11, ch12, ch13, ch14, ch15 ] > >>>>> + minItems: 16 > >>>>> + uniqueItems: true > >>>> > >>>> No, because order is strict. > >>> > >>> Why? I realize that prior to this the order was indeed strict and it's > >> > >> That's the policy for entire Devicetree. I said why in other email: > >> because any bindings consumer can take it via indices. > >> > >>> common to have these listed in strict order in the DTS files. However, > >>> this is an arbitrary restriction that was introduced in the patch that > >>> added reg-names. However, */*-names properties have always assumed the > >>> ordering to be non-strict because each entry from the * property gets > >>> matched up with the corresponding entry in the *-names property, so the > >>> ordering is completely irrelevant. > >> > >> This was raised so many times... reg-names is just a helper. It does not > >> change the fact that order should be strict and if binding defined the > >> order, it is an ABI. > > > > Sorry, but that's not how we've dealt with this in the past. Even though > > this was now ten or more years ago, I distinctly recall that when we > > started adding these *-names properties and at the time it was very much > > implied that the order didn't matter. > > Then you added it wrong and Rob was expressing the purpose of names > multiple times. The names were for cases when you could not determine > the order. > > The strict order was repeated so many times in the mailing list, I lost > track. Sorry, but this isn't true. Perhaps the device tree maintainers' stance on this has changed over the years, but don't go around telling people that they did things wrongly when all they were doing was follow what was considered best practice at the time. > > The only use-case that I know of where order was always meant to matter > > is backwards-compatibility for devices that used to have a single entry > > (hence drivers couldn't rely on *-names to resolve the index) and then > > had additional entries added. The *-names entry for that previously > > single entry would now obviously have to always be first in the list to > > preserve backwards-compatibility. > > > > Besides, if reg-names was really only a helper, then it would also be > > completely redundant. Many device tree bindings have *-names properties > > marked as "required" precisely because of the role that they serve. > > For most of the cases, so ones which do not have flexible order, it is > redundant and for that reason Qualcomm has been switching away from > xxx-names in several drivers. > > However it is not entirely redundant, because it allows bindings > consumers to choose either index or name. Both are ABI, when documented > in the binding with strict order. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_JsqJSYAsotjzvOUy_f7ZRfsSrfZyuEzq7eRwwKk12FBgxYg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ You do realize that "flexible order" is entirely defined by the bindings, right? There's nothing inherently strict in any of this. The bindings define any order (or lack thereof) that entries should be listed in and the drivers that implement the bindings need to respect whatever the bindings specify. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
