Hi Krzysztof,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 01:09:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 24/01/2025 23:35, Andrew Davis wrote:
> > On 1/24/25 10:48 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 24/01/2025 17:05, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
> >>> Hi Krzysztof,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:22:54AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:19:49AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 11:24:33AM +0100, Markus Schneider-Pargmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Add compatible for ti,am62-ddr-pmctrl to the list. There is a DDR pmctrl
> >>>>>> register in the wkup-conf register space of am62a and am62p. This
> >>>>>> register controls DDR power management.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Schneider-Pargmann <msp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml | 2 ++
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Un-acked, I missed the point that you really speak in commit msg about
> >>>> register and you really treat one register is a device. I assumed you
> >>>> only need that register from this device, but no. That obviously is not
> >>>> what this device is. Device is not a single register among 10000 others.
> >>>> IOW, You do not have 10000 devices there.
> >>>
> >>> Do I understand you correctly that the whole register range of the
> >>> wkup_conf node as seen in arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62a-wakeup.dtsi
> >>> should be considered a single syscon device?
> >>
> >> I don't have the datasheets (and not my task to actually check this),
> >> but you should probably follow datasheet. I assume it describes what is
> >> the device, more or less.
> >>
> >> I assume entire wkup_conf is considered a device.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately wkup_conf is modeled as a simple-bus with currently 5
> >>> subnodes defined of which 4 of them consist of a single register. Most
> >>> of them are syscon as well. So I think I can't change the simple-bus
> >>> back to syscon.
> >>
> >> Huh... Maybe TI folks will help us understand why such design was chosen.
> >>
> >
> > Many of the devices inside the wkup_conf are already modeled as such.
> > Clocks and muxes for instance already have drivers and bindings, this
> > is nothing new to TI.
> >
> > If we just use a blank "syscon" over the entire region we would end up
> > with drivers that use phandles to the top level wkup_conf node and
> > poke directly the registers they need from that space.
> >
> > Would you rather have
> >
> > some-device {
> > ti,epwm_tbclk = <&wkup_conf>;
> > }
> >
> > or
> >
> > some-device {
> > clocks = <&epwm_tbclk 0>;
> > }
>
> How is this comparable? These are clocks. You would have clocks property
> in both cases.
>
>
> >
> > with that epwm_tbclk being a proper clock node inside wkup_conf?
> > I would much prefer the second, even though the clock node
> > only uses a single register. And in the first case, we would need
> > to have the offset into the wkup_conf space hard-coded in the
> > driver for each new SoC. Eventually all that data would need to be
> > put in tables and we end up back to machine board files..
> >
> > I'm not saying every magic number in all drivers should
> > be offloaded into DT, but there is a line somewhere between
> > that and having the DT simply contain the SoC's name compatible
>
> That's not the question here.
>
> > and all other data going into the kernel. That line might be a
> > personal preference, so my question back is: what is wrong
> > if we do want "1000 new syscons per each register" for our
> > SoCs DT?
>
> Because it is false representation of hardware. You do not have 1000
> devices. You have only one device.
>
>
> >
> > (and the number is not 1000, scanning the kernel I can see
> > the largest wkup_conf region node we have today has a grand
> > total number sub-nodes of 6)
>
> But what is being added here is device per each register, not per feature.
The register layout is like this:
0x8010 - 0x803c contains 4 clockselect registers
0x80d0 is the DDR16SS_PMCTRL regsiter
0x8190 - 0x8600 contains another 7 clockselect registers
I see the feature here in the block being clockselect registers. But the
ddr-pmctrl register doesn't fit into this so I opted to describe this
single register as one node as it looked to me like one feature. Of
course I would have preferred this to be different but it is not. Would
you prefer the clockselect registers and the pmctrl register to be
described as one syscon?
Best
Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
