On Wed, 20 May 2015, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:35:51AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 19 May 2015, Andrew Bresticker wrote: > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Andrew Bresticker > > > <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > >>> On 13/05/15 15:39, Lee Jones wrote: > > > >>> > On Mon, 04 May 2015, Andrew Bresticker wrote: > > > >>> > > > > >>> >> Add a binding document for the XUSB host complex on NVIDIA Tegra124 > > > >>> >> and later SoCs. The XUSB host complex includes a mailbox for > > > >>> >> communication with the XUSB micro-controller and an xHCI host-controller. > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> >> --- > > > >>> >> Changes from v7: > > > >>> >> - Move non-shared resources into child nodes. > > > >>> >> New for v7. > > > >>> >> --- > > > >>> >> .../bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >>> >> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > > >>> >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt > > > >>> >> > > > >>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt > > > >>> >> new file mode 100644 > > > >>> >> index 0000000..bc50110 > > > >>> >> --- /dev/null > > > >>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt > > > >>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > > > >>> >> +NVIDIA Tegra XUSB host copmlex > > > >>> >> +============================== > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> +The XUSB host complex on Tegra124 and later SoCs contains an xHCI host > > > >>> >> +controller and a mailbox for communication with the XUSB micro-controller. > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> +Required properties: > > > >>> >> +-------------------- > > > >>> >> + - compatible: For Tegra124, must contain "nvidia,tegra124-xusb". > > > >>> >> + Otherwise, must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-xusb", "nvidia,tegra124-xusb"' > > > >>> >> + where <chip> is tegra132. > > > >>> >> + - reg: Must contain the base and length of the XUSB FPCI registers. > > > >>> >> + - ranges: Bus address mapping for the XUSB block. Can be empty since the > > > >>> >> + mapping is 1:1. > > > >>> >> + - #address-cells: Must be 2. > > > >>> >> + - #size-cells: Must be 2. > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> +Example: > > > >>> >> +-------- > > > >>> >> + usb@0,70098000 { > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb"; > > > >>> >> + reg = <0x0 0x70098000 0x0 0x1000>; > > > >>> >> + ranges; > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> + #address-cells = <2>; > > > >>> >> + #size-cells = <2>; > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> + usb-host@0,70090000 { > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci"; > > > >>> >> + ... > > > >>> >> + }; > > > >>> >> + > > > >>> >> + mailbox { > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox"; > > > >>> >> + ... > > > >>> >> + }; > > > >>> > > > > >>> > This doesn't appear to be a proper MFD. I would have the USB and > > > >>> > Mailbox devices probe seperately and use a phandle to point the USB > > > >>> > device to its Mailbox. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > usb@xyz { > > > >>> > mboxes = <&xusb-mailbox, [chan]>; > > > >>> > }; > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> I am assuming that Andrew had laid it out like this to reflect the hw > > > >>> structure. The mailbox and xhci controller are part of the xusb > > > >>> sub-system and hence appear as child nodes. My understanding is that for > > > >>> device-tree we want the device-tree structure to reflect the actual hw. > > > >>> Is this not the case? > > > >> > > > >> Yes, the DT files should reflect h/w. I have requested to see what > > > >> the memory map looks like, so I might provide a more appropriate > > > >> solution to accepting a pretty pointless MFD. > > > > > > > > FWIW, the address map for XUSB looks like this: > > > > > > > > XUSB_HOST: 0x70090000 - 0x7009a000 > > > > xHCI registers: 0x70090000 - 0x70098000 > > > > FPCI configuration registers: 0x70098000 - 0x70099000 > > > > IPFS configuration registers: 0x70099000 - 0x7009a000 > > > > > > > >> Two solutions spring to mind. You can either call > > > >> of_platform_populate() from the USB driver, as some already do: > > > >> > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c: > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev); > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-keystone.c: > > > >> error = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev); > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c: > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev); > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c: > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, qdwc->dev); > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-st.c: > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev); > > > >> drivers/usb/musb/musb_am335x.c: > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev); > > > > > > > > This still requires a small, separate driver to setup the regmap and > > > > do of_platform_populate(). The only difference is it lives in > > > > drivers/usb/ instead of drivers/mfd/. > > > > > > > >> Or use the "simple-mfd", which is currently in -next: > > > >> > > > >> git show next/master:Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt > > > > > > > > I'm not too opposed to this, but Thierry was when I brought this up > > > > before. The issue here is that if we ever have to do something > > > > besides setting up a regmap in the MFD, we'd have to change the > > > > binding and break DT backwards-compatibility. > > > > > > Any thoughts on this? A minimal MFD seems to be the best way to > > > future-proof this binding/driver should it need to be extended in the > > > future. If this is a firm NAK from you however, I'll need to let > > > Jassi now so that he can un-queue the mailbox patches for 4.2.... > > > > I was waiting to hear Thierry's thoughts. However, I am unconvinced > > that you need an MFD driver for this and refuse to take a shell (read > > "pointless") one on an "if we ever ..." clause. > > > > Will you break backwards capability though? I'm not sure you will. > > Old DTBs will still use 'simple-mfd' and probe the devices in the > > normal way. *If* you introduce an MFD driver at a later date then the > > old DTB will miss out the *new* functionality, which is expected and > > accepted. > > I'm a little confused by the simple-mfd approach. The only code I see in > linux-next for this is a single line that adds the "simple-mfd" string > to the OF device ID table in drivers/of/platform.c. As far as I can tell > this will merely cause child devices to be created. There won't be a > shared regmap and resources won't be set up properly either. Having a > proper MFD driver seems to be the only way to achieve what we need. > > The reason why every other simple-mfd users seems to get away with this > is because they also match on syscon and that sets up a regmap of its > own and the child device drivers use the syscon API to get at it. So I > don't see how we can make use of simple-mfd to achieve what we need, > unless we essentially copy what syscon does (but do proper resource > management while at it). If you have shared resources and your device isn't classed as a syscon device then yes, simple-mfd probably isn't suitable for this use-case. You might need to go into more detail with regards to "proper resource management", as I'm not entirely sure I agree. Still, this doesn't change the fact that, from what I've seen, I still don't think you need a dedicated MFD driver. What do you think of: usb-host@0,70090000 { compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci"; reg = <0x0 0x70090000 0x0 0x80CF>, <0x0 0x70098800 0x0 0x0800>, <0x0 0x70099000 0x0 0x1000>; /* Something from the datasheet */ reg-names = "xhci-before-mbox", "xhci-after-mbox", "ipfs"; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 39 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; ranges; xusb_mbox: mailbox { compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox"; reg = <0x0 0x700980e0 0x0 0x13>, <0x0 0x70098428 0x0 0x03>; /* Something from the datasheet */ reg-names = "mbox-one", "mbox-two"; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 40 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; }; }; Then hvae the XHCI driver call of_platform_populate() as I proposed above? > There is also the matter of clocks, resets, power supplies, etc. which > simple-mfd can't take into account in its current form. From a hardware > point of view, (some of) the clocks and resets are shared by the XHCI > and the mailbox blocks, so the device tree node would have to take that > into account. And a driver would also have to know which clocks, resets > and power supplies to probe and the order in which they need to be > enabled. simple-mfd doesn't provide any of that currently, so we'd > likely need to hack around that in all sorts of weird ways in the child > drivers. It makes much more sense for a top-level MFD driver to set up > the shared hardware resources and then instantiate the child devices and > let the drivers for those only care about the child-specific resources. > > A catch-all driver will inevitably lead to implementing a midlayer with > potentially all sorts of quirks to make it work with the various devices > out there. > > A much better implementation, in my opinion, would be to make simple-mfd > a subclassable object and then have drivers use a helper library to call > code that is common for simple-mfd kinds of devices. Something like this > for example: > > struct tegra_xusb { > ... > struct mfd_simple mfd; > ... > }; > > static int tegra_xusb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > { > struct tegra_xusb *xusb; > ... > err = mfd_simple_register(&xusb->mfd); > ... > } > > Now all these drivers reuse all the code provided by the mfd_simple > helper, which will instantiate the children, but it is also very easy to > tie in the platform-specific glue (clocks, resets, regulators, ...) via > the device-specific drivers. I'm not keen on creating a not-so-simple-mfd driver. Let's work with what we've got for the time being. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html