Hi Andrea, Am 23.08.24 um 11:44 schrieb Andrea della Porta:
Hi Stefan, On 18:20 Wed 21 Aug , Stefan Wahren wrote:Hi Andrea, Am 20.08.24 um 16:36 schrieb Andrea della Porta:The RaspberryPi RP1 is ia PCI multi function device containing peripherals ranging from Ethernet to USB controller, I2C, SPI and others.sorry, i cannot provide you a code review, but just some comments. multi function device suggests "mfd" subsystem or at least "soc" . I won't recommend misc driver here.It's true that RP1 can be called an MFD but the reason for not placing it in mfd subsystem are twofold: - these discussions are quite clear about this matter: please see [1] and [2] - the current driver use no mfd API at all This RP1 driver is not currently addressing any aspect of ARM core in the SoC so I would say it should not stay in drivers/soc / either, as also condifirmed by [2] again and [3] (note that Microchip LAN966x is a very close fit to what we have here on RP1).
thanks i was aware of these discussions. A pointer to them or at least a short statement in the cover letter would be great.
Implement a bare minimum driver to operate the RP1, leveraging actual OF based driver implementations for the on-borad peripherals by loading a devicetree overlay during driver probe.Can you please explain why this should be a DT overlay? The RP1 is assembled on the Raspberry Pi 5 PCB. DT overlays are typically for loose connections like displays or HATs. I think a DTSI just for the RP1 would fit better and is easier to read.The dtsi solution you proposed is the one adopted downstream. It has its benefits of course, but there's more. With the overlay approach we can achieve more generic and agnostic approach to managing this chipset, being that it is a PCI endpoint and could be possibly be reused in other hw implementations. I believe a similar reasoning could be applied to Bootlin's Microchip LAN966x patchset as well, and they also choose to approach the dtb overlay.
Could please add this point in the commit message. Doesn't introduce (maintainence) issues in case U-Boot needs a RP1 driver, too?
Plus, a solution that can (althoguh proabbly in teh long run) cope with both DT or ACPI based system has been kindly requested, plase see [4] for details. IMHO the approach proposed from RH et al. of using dtbo for this 'special' kind of drivers makes a lot of sense (see [5]).The peripherals are accessed by mapping MMIO registers starting from PCI BAR1 region. As a minimum driver, the peripherals will not be added to the dtbo here, but in following patches. Link: https://datasheets.raspberrypi.com/rp1/rp1-peripherals.pdf Signed-off-by: Andrea della Porta <andrea.porta@xxxxxxxx> --- MAINTAINERS | 2 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/rp1.dtso | 152 ++++++++++++ drivers/misc/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig | 20 ++ drivers/misc/rp1/Makefile | 3 + drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.c | 333 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.dtso | 8 + drivers/pci/quirks.c | 1 + include/linux/pci_ids.h | 3 + 10 files changed, 524 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/rp1.dtso create mode 100644 drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/misc/rp1/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.c create mode 100644 drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.dtso...+ + rp1_clocks: clocks@c040018000 { + compatible = "raspberrypi,rp1-clocks"; + #clock-cells = <1>; + reg = <0xc0 0x40018000 0x0 0x10038>; + clocks = <&clk_xosc>; + clock-names = "xosc"; + + assigned-clocks = <&rp1_clocks RP1_PLL_SYS_CORE>, + <&rp1_clocks RP1_PLL_AUDIO_CORE>, + // RP1_PLL_VIDEO_CORE and dividers are now managed by VEC,DPI drivers + <&rp1_clocks RP1_PLL_SYS>, + <&rp1_clocks RP1_PLL_SYS_SEC>, + <&rp1_clocks RP1_PLL_SYS_PRI_PH>, + <&rp1_clocks RP1_CLK_ETH_TSU>; + + assigned-clock-rates = <1000000000>, // RP1_PLL_SYS_CORE + <1536000000>, // RP1_PLL_AUDIO_CORE + <200000000>, // RP1_PLL_SYS + <125000000>, // RP1_PLL_SYS_SEC + <100000000>, // RP1_PLL_SYS_PRI_PH + <50000000>; // RP1_CLK_ETH_TSU + }; + + rp1_gpio: pinctrl@c0400d0000 { + reg = <0xc0 0x400d0000 0x0 0xc000>, + <0xc0 0x400e0000 0x0 0xc000>, + <0xc0 0x400f0000 0x0 0xc000>; + compatible = "raspberrypi,rp1-gpio"; + gpio-controller; + #gpio-cells = <2>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <2>; + interrupts = <RP1_INT_IO_BANK0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <RP1_INT_IO_BANK1 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <RP1_INT_IO_BANK2 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; + gpio-line-names = + "ID_SDA", // GPIO0 + "ID_SCL", // GPIO1 + "GPIO2", // GPIO2 + "GPIO3", // GPIO3 + "GPIO4", // GPIO4 + "GPIO5", // GPIO5 + "GPIO6", // GPIO6 + "GPIO7", // GPIO7 + "GPIO8", // GPIO8 + "GPIO9", // GPIO9 + "GPIO10", // GPIO10 + "GPIO11", // GPIO11 + "GPIO12", // GPIO12 + "GPIO13", // GPIO13 + "GPIO14", // GPIO14 + "GPIO15", // GPIO15 + "GPIO16", // GPIO16 + "GPIO17", // GPIO17 + "GPIO18", // GPIO18 + "GPIO19", // GPIO19 + "GPIO20", // GPIO20 + "GPIO21", // GPIO21 + "GPIO22", // GPIO22 + "GPIO23", // GPIO23 + "GPIO24", // GPIO24 + "GPIO25", // GPIO25 + "GPIO26", // GPIO26 + "GPIO27", // GPIO27 + "PCIE_RP1_WAKE", // GPIO28 + "FAN_TACH", // GPIO29 + "HOST_SDA", // GPIO30 + "HOST_SCL", // GPIO31 + "ETH_RST_N", // GPIO32 + "", // GPIO33 + "CD0_IO0_MICCLK", // GPIO34 + "CD0_IO0_MICDAT0", // GPIO35 + "RP1_PCIE_CLKREQ_N", // GPIO36 + "", // GPIO37 + "CD0_SDA", // GPIO38 + "CD0_SCL", // GPIO39 + "CD1_SDA", // GPIO40 + "CD1_SCL", // GPIO41 + "USB_VBUS_EN", // GPIO42 + "USB_OC_N", // GPIO43 + "RP1_STAT_LED", // GPIO44 + "FAN_PWM", // GPIO45 + "CD1_IO0_MICCLK", // GPIO46 + "2712_WAKE", // GPIO47 + "CD1_IO1_MICDAT1", // GPIO48 + "EN_MAX_USB_CUR", // GPIO49 + "", // GPIO50 + "", // GPIO51 + "", // GPIO52 + ""; // GPIO53GPIO line names are board specific, so this should go to the Raspberry Pi 5 file.Could we instead just name them with generic GPIO'N' where N is the number of the gpio? Much like many of that pins already are... in this way we don't add a dependency in the board dts to the rp1_gpio node, which is not even there when the main dts is parsed at boot, since the dtbo will be added only on PCI enumeration of the RP1 device.
I think we should avoid user space incompatibilities with the vendor tree.
Or even better: since we don't explicitly use the gpio names to address them (e.g. phy-reset-gpios in rp1_eth node is addressing the ETH_RST_N gpio by number), can we just get rid of the gpio-line-names property? Also Bootlin's Microchip gpio node seems to avoid naming them...
As i said above the gpio lines are for user space, honestly nobody likes to go to cryptic interfaces of gpiochips and gpio numbers. Maybe ETH_RST_N isn't good example because this not interesting from user space. For example RP1_STAT_LED is a better one. Nobody can predict the future use cases of the RP1 and its pins. So i think we should have the flexibilty to specify the GPIOs on the board level for user friendliness. Isn't it possible to specify almost empty rp1 node with the gpio line names for the RPi 5 and apply the rp1 overlay on top?
+ }; + }; + }; + }; +}; diff --git a/drivers/misc/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/Kconfig index 41c3d2821a78..02405209e6c4 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/misc/Kconfig @@ -618,4 +618,5 @@ source "drivers/misc/uacce/Kconfig" source "drivers/misc/pvpanic/Kconfig" source "drivers/misc/mchp_pci1xxxx/Kconfig" source "drivers/misc/keba/Kconfig" +source "drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig" endmenu diff --git a/drivers/misc/Makefile b/drivers/misc/Makefile index c2f990862d2b..84bfa866fbee 100644 --- a/drivers/misc/Makefile +++ b/drivers/misc/Makefile @@ -71,3 +71,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TPS6594_PFSM) += tps6594-pfsm.o obj-$(CONFIG_NSM) += nsm.o obj-$(CONFIG_MARVELL_CN10K_DPI) += mrvl_cn10k_dpi.o obj-y += keba/ +obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_RP1) += rp1/ diff --git a/drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig b/drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..050417ee09ae --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/misc/rp1/Kconfig @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +# +# RaspberryPi RP1 misc device +# + +config MISC_RP1 + tristate "RaspberryPi RP1 PCIe support" + depends on PCI && PCI_QUIRKS + select OF + select OF_OVERLAY + select IRQ_DOMAIN + select PCI_DYNAMIC_OF_NODES + help + Support for the RP1 peripheral chip found on Raspberry Pi 5 board. + This device supports several sub-devices including e.g. Ethernet controller, + USB controller, I2C, SPI and UART. + The driver is responsible for enabling the DT node once the PCIe endpoint + has been configured, and handling interrupts. + This driver uses an overlay to load other drivers to support for RP1 + internal sub-devices. diff --git a/drivers/misc/rp1/Makefile b/drivers/misc/rp1/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..e83854b4ed2c --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/misc/rp1/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only +rp1-pci-objs := rp1-pci.o rp1-pci.dtbo.o +obj-$(CONFIG_MISC_RP1) += rp1-pci.o diff --git a/drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.c b/drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..a6093ba7e19a --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/misc/rp1/rp1-pci.c @@ -0,0 +1,333 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +/* + * Copyright (c) 2018-22 Raspberry Pi Ltd. + * All rights reserved. + */ + +#include <linux/clk.h> +#include <linux/clkdev.h> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h> +#include <linux/err.h> +#include <linux/interrupt.h> +#include <linux/irq.h> +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h> +#include <linux/module.h> +#include <linux/msi.h> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> +#include <linux/pci.h> +#include <linux/platform_device.h> +#include <linux/reset.h> + +#include <dt-bindings/misc/rp1.h> + +#define RP1_B0_CHIP_ID 0x10001927 +#define RP1_C0_CHIP_ID 0x20001927 + +#define RP1_PLATFORM_ASIC BIT(1) +#define RP1_PLATFORM_FPGA BIT(0) + +#define RP1_DRIVER_NAME "rp1" + +#define RP1_ACTUAL_IRQS RP1_INT_END +#define RP1_IRQS RP1_ACTUAL_IRQS +#define RP1_HW_IRQ_MASK GENMASK(5, 0) + +#define RP1_SYSCLK_RATE 200000000 +#define RP1_SYSCLK_FPGA_RATE 60000000 + +enum { + SYSINFO_CHIP_ID_OFFSET = 0, + SYSINFO_PLATFORM_OFFSET = 4, +}; + +#define REG_SET 0x800 +#define REG_CLR 0xc00 + +/* MSIX CFG registers start at 0x8 */ +#define MSIX_CFG(x) (0x8 + (4 * (x))) + +#define MSIX_CFG_IACK_EN BIT(3) +#define MSIX_CFG_IACK BIT(2) +#define MSIX_CFG_TEST BIT(1) +#define MSIX_CFG_ENABLE BIT(0) + +#define INTSTATL 0x108 +#define INTSTATH 0x10c + +extern char __dtbo_rp1_pci_begin[]; +extern char __dtbo_rp1_pci_end[]; + +struct rp1_dev { + struct pci_dev *pdev; + struct device *dev; + struct clk *sys_clk; + struct irq_domain *domain; + struct irq_data *pcie_irqds[64]; + void __iomem *bar1; + int ovcs_id; + bool level_triggered_irq[RP1_ACTUAL_IRQS]; +}; + +...+ +static const struct pci_device_id dev_id_table[] = { + { PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_RPI, PCI_DEVICE_ID_RP1_C0), }, + { 0, } +}; + +static struct pci_driver rp1_driver = { + .name = RP1_DRIVER_NAME, + .id_table = dev_id_table, + .probe = rp1_probe, + .remove = rp1_remove, +}; + +module_pci_driver(rp1_driver); + +MODULE_AUTHOR("Phil Elwell <phil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>");Module author & Copyright doesn't seem to match with this patch author. Please clarify/fixMy intention here is that, even if the code has been heavily modified by me, the core original code is still there so I just wanted to tribute it to the original author. I'll synchronize this with RaspberryPi guys and coem up with a unified solution.
That would be nice to mention in the commit message and add your copyright.
Just in case: would multiple MODULE_AUTHOR entries (one with my name and one with original authors name) be accepetd?
Sure Best regards
Many thanks, Andrea References: - [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240612140208.GC1504919@xxxxxxxxxx/ - [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/83f7fa09-d0e6-4f36-a27d-cee08979be2a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ - [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024081356-mutable-everyday-6f9d@gregkh/ - [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ba8cdf39-3ba3-4abc-98f5-d394d6867f95@xxxxxxx/ - [5]: https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1421/attachments/1337/2680/LPC2023%20Non-discoverable%20devices%20in%20PCI.pdf
