On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 20:44 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > Hi Jerome, > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Martin Blumenstingl > <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jerome, > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 11:10 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > > > > Hi Jerome, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 01:27 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > > > > > > Meson8b is a cost reduced variant of the Meson8 SoC. It's package size > > > > > > is smaller than Meson8. > > > > > > Unfortunately there are a few key differences which cannot be seen > > > > > > without close inspection of the code and the public S805 data-sheet: > > > > > > - the GPIOX bank is missing the GPIOX_12, GPIOX_13, GPIOX_14 and > > > > > > GPIOX_15 GPIOs > > > > > > - the GPIOY bank is missing the GPIOY_2, GPIOY_4, GPIOY_5, GPIOY_15 and > > > > > > GPIOY_16 GPIOs > > > > > > - the GPIODV bank is missing all GPIOs except GPIODV_9, GPIODV_24, > > > > > > GPIODV_25, GPIODV_26, GPIODV_27, GPIODV_28 and GPIODV_29 > > > > > > - the GPIOZ bank is missing completely > > > > > > - there is a new GPIO bank called "DIF" > > > > > > - (all other pads exist on both, Meson8 and Meson8b) > > > > > > > > > > > > The pinctrl-meson driver internally uses struct meson_bank, which > > > > > > assumes that the GPIOs are continuous, without any holes in between. > > > > > > This also matches with how the registers work: > > > > > > - GPIOX_0 for example uses bit 0 for switching this pad between > > > > > > input/output, configuring pull-up/down, etc. > > > > > > - GPIOX_16 uses bit 16 for switching this pad between input/output, > > > > > > configuring pull-up/down/, etc > > > > > > GPIOX_16 uses bit 16 even though GPIOX12..15 don't exist. (This is > > > > > > probably the reason why Meson8b inherits the dt-bindings - with all GPIO > > > > > > IDs - from Meson8) > > > > > > This means that Meson8b only has 83 actual GPIO lines. Without any holes > > > > > > there would be 130 GPIO lines in total (120 are inherited from Meson8 > > > > > > plus 10 new from the DIF bank). > > > > > > > > > > > > The pinctrl framework handles holes in the pin list fine, which can be > > > > > > seen in debugfs: > > > > > > $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/c1109880.pinctrl/pins > > > > > > pin 9 (GPIOX_9) c1109880.pinctrl > > > > > > pin 10 (GPIOX_10) c1109880.pinctrl > > > > > > pin 11 (GPIOX_11) c1109880.pinctrl > > > > > > pin 16 (GPIOX_16) c1109880.pinctrl > > > > > > pin 17 (GPIOX_17) c1109880.pinctrl > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > While working on this controller a few weeks ago, I have seen that our current > > > > > design does not tolerate having holes in the declared PINS. This is something > > > > > that predate the changes mentioned here. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not a big fan of the this overrides_ngpio here, I'm sure it fixes your > > > > > problem but it seems a bit hacky, don't you think ? > > > > > > > > this is the reason why I sent it as RFC - I'm open to better solutions! > > > > > > > > > I would prefer either of these 2 approach: > > > > > > > > > > * Update the binding and kill the necessary pins. We are still figuring out > > > > > those chips, which is why the bindings are marked as un-stable. If sharing the > > > > > binding with meson8 was a mistake, now is the time to fix it. > > > > > > > > let's say we produce a header file which does not contain GPIOX_12: > > > > this would be nice since it gives compile errors if non-existent GPIOs > > > > are used (instead of failing only at run-time) > > > > > > > > however, the problem is meson8b_cbus_banks (annotated here to make it > > > > easier to read): > > > > BANK("X", /* name */ > > > > GPIOX_0, GPIOX_21, /* first and last GPIO */ > > > > 97, 118, /* first and last IRQ */ > > > > 4, 0, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */ > > > > 4, 0, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */ > > > > 0, 0, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */ > > > > 1, 0, /* output value register and bit offset */ > > > > 2, 0), /* input value register and bit offset */ > > > > > > > > let's say we want to configure GPIOX_0 as an input: > > > > - we need to find the "offset" of this pad within the bank -> 0 > > > > - find the input/output direction register -> 0 > > > > - find the bit in that register: bit 0 + pad offset 0 = 0 > > > > - we clear bit 0 in register 0 > > > > > > > > with the current code configuring GPIOX_16 as input works like this: > > > > - we need to find the "offset" of this pad within the bank -> 16 > > > > - find the input/output direction register -> 0 > > > > - find the bit in that register: bit 0 + pad offset 16 = 16 > > > > - we clear bit 16 in register 0 > > > > > > If offset calculation is really the problem, nothing is stopping you from the > > > splitting BANK in two. With your example of GPIOX_12...15 missing: > > > > > > BANK("X1", /* name */ > > > GPIOX_0, GPIOX_11, /* first and last GPIO */ > > > 97, 108, /* first and last IRQ */ > > > 4, 0, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */ > > > 4, 0, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */ > > > 0, 0, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */ > > > 1, 0, /* output value register and bit offset */ > > > 2, 0), /* input value register and bit offset */ > > > > > > BANK("X2", /* name */ > > > GPIOX_16, GPIOX_21, /* first and last GPIO */ > > > 113, 118, /* first and last IRQ */ > > > X, Y, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */ > > > X, Y, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */ > > > Z, XX, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */ > > > FOO, 0, /* output value register and bit offset */ > > > BAR, 0), /* input value register and bit offset */ > > > > nice thinking :) > > the only solution I could come up with was to change the MESON_PIN > > definition to something like: > > #define MESON_PIN(pad, pullen_bit, pull_bit, direction_bit, > > output_bit, input_bit, irq_num) > > > > that however means that we would have to change a lot of code in all > > pinctrl drivers > > > > > > > > > > let's assume that we removed GPIOX_12...15 from Meson8b > > > > GPIOX_16 could now have the same value that was assigned to GPIOX_12 > > > > before (= 12) > > > > but how do we now know the offset of GPIOX_16? > > > > if we don't consider it in the calculation above we would end up > > > > writing to bit 12 (instead of bit 16). > > > > > > > > we could still cleanup the header file but leave the IDs of the > > > > existing GPIOs untouched (so GPIOX_16 would still be 16). > > > > > > I don't really get the point of doing so, especially is this patch is still > > > needed in the end. > > > > > > > however, that means that this patch is still needed because our last > > > > ID would be DIF_4_N (= value 129) again (so with holes our total count > > > > is still 130). > > > > with that we wouldn't even break the DT ABI > > > > > > While I prefer changing the bindings over the 'over_ngpio' tweak, it is not my > > > favorite solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > * If meson8b is indeed a cost reduction, it is likely to be same the approach as > > > > > s905x vs s905d: The D version is the same SoC with less ball pad but, as far as > > > > > we know, the logic is still there on the silicium (same die), it is just not > > > > > routed to the outside world. Both version share the same pinctrl driver (gxl). > > > > > The pad not routed to the outside world can just be considered "internal pads" > > > > > > > > there are a few differences between Meson8 and Meson8b, see also [0]: > > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) CPU cores: 4x Cortex-A9 > > > > - Meson8b CPU cores: 4x Cortex-A5 > > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) GPU: Mali-450MP8 > > > > - Meson8b GPU: Mali-450MP4 > > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) package size: 19mm x 19 mm, LFBGA > > > > - Meson8b package size: 12mm x 12 mm, LFBGA > > > > > > > > the pinctrl register layout seems to be *mostly* compatible between > > > > Meson8 and Meson8b. > > > > unfortunately it's not entirely compatible, here is one example: > > > > - Meson8: GROUP(uart_tx_b1, 6, 23), > > > > - Meson8b: GROUP(uart_tx_b1, 6, 19), > > > > - Meson8: GROUP(eth_mdc, 6, 5), > > > > - Meson8b: GROUP(eth_mdc, 6, 9), > > > > > > > > > Long story short, if meson8 and meson8b share the same bindings, maybe they > > > > > should also share the driver. If they can't share the driver because they are > > > > > definitely incompatible, maybe they should not share the same bindings > > > > > > > > based on what I have seen so far I believe that they should not share > > > > the same bindings > > > > > > It looks to me to be same gpio/pinconf IP with a few pads not exposed to the > > > outside world, so I think they could share the bindings, and apparently fair > > > part of the driver data. > > > > > > Apparently amlogic tweaked a bit the pinmux. With the current architecture of > > > our pinctrl driver, it should be fairly easy to register 2 drivers sharing > > > everything but the GROUP table (and maybe the FUNCS if necessary) > > > > > > If possible, I would be more in favor of this last solution, as we could kill > > > one the pinctrl-meson8.c file, which are mostly a copy/paste of one another. > > > While fixing you issue, we would end up with less code to maintain and save a > > > bit of memory. > > > > > > Do you see any other big issue with this approach ? > > > > I would have to go through the whole list of pads to see what the > > actual differences are > > I tried to automate this as far as possible with the attached script > you can use it like this: > - first get the gpio.c files from the Amlogic 3.10 kernel for Meson8 > and Meson8b: [0] and [1] > - ./list-meson8-pinmux-reg-bits.sh path/to/meson8/gpio.c | sort -u > meson8.txt > - ./list-meson8-pinmux-reg-bits.sh path/to/meson8b/gpio.c | sort -u > > meson8b.txt > - diff -Naur meson8.txt meson8b.txt > diff.patch > - (the resulting diff is attached) > - compare the Meson8 documentation (found in a .csv file, see [2]) > with the public Meson8b datasheet (see [3]) > > the major differences are: > - DIF_TTL bank only exists on Meson8b > - GPIOZ bank only exists on Meson8 > - HDMI_TTL bank only exists on Meson8b (not supported by our mainline driver) > - some of the Ethernet pins are using the GPIOH bank on Meson8b while > Meson8 has these in the GPIOZ bank > - Meson8b has various SPI pins in the GPIOH bank while Meson8 has them > in the GPIOZ bank > - Meson8 only has pins for one TSin interface, Meson8b seems to > support two TSin interfaces > > smaller differences are: > - the LCD_* pins (maybe even all of the LCD support) in GPIODV only > exists on Meson8 > - Meson8b has the I2C_A pins on GPIODV_24 and GPIODV_25 (Meson8 has > multiple pins for this in the GPIOZ bank) > - Meson8b has the I2C_B pins on GPIODV_26 and GPIODV_27 (Meson8 has > these on GPIOZ_2 and GPIOZ_3) > - Meson8b has the I2C_C pins on GPIODV_28 and GPIODV_29 (Meson8 two > chices: either GPIOY_0 and GPIOY_1 or GPIOZ_4 and GPIOZ_5) > - the XTAL_24M_OUT signal uses GPIODV_29 on Meson8b but GPIOX_11 on Meson8 > - Meson8b can output UART_CTS_B on GPIOX_10 - Meson8 supports GPIODV_26 instead > - Meson8b can output UART_RTS_B on GPIOX_20 - Meson8 supports GPIODV_27 instead > - Meson8b can output SPI_SS0 on GPIOX_20 - Meson8 supports GPIOZ_9 instead > > not checked yet: > - Meson8b seems to have a few more bits in BOOT_8 BOOT_10 and BOOT_18 > - Meson8b seems to have a few more bits in GPIOAO_2, GPIOAO_3, > GPIOAO_6, GPIOAO_7, GPIOAO_9, GPIOAO_10 and GPIOAO_13 > - GPIOY_0, GPIOX_4, GPIOX_5, GPIOX_6, GPIOX_7, GPIOX_8, GPIOX_9 > - the changes (there are quite a few) in the GPIOY bank > > notes for other pins I have randomly checked: > - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_0 at reg9[24] - this seems > undocumented > - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_1 at reg9[23] - this seems > undocumented > - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_2 at reg9[22] - this seems > undocumented > - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_3 at reg9[21] - this seems > undocumented > > I'm not sure if we should try to create a unified pinctrl driver for > Meson8 and Meson8b Thanks the detailed summary Martin ! I agree with you. meson8b obviously derives from meson8 but there is to many subtle differences to create unified driver ... w/o adding spaghetti code around Is the "2 banks" solution enough to solve the problem cleanly ? If not and it still leaves problems to be solved in the future, maybe we would be better off with different bindings for meson8 and meson8b ? and be done with it ... > so far we have: > - meson_pmx_group are roughly 67% identical (meson_pmx_func depend on > meson_pmx_group) > - different pinctrl_pin_desc (due to different GPIO banks) > - different IRQ numbering > > so I wonder how much we would actually save by creating a unified > Meson8/Meson8b pinctrl driver. > > as a side-note: I found out that Meson8m2 has 10 pins which each add > one function compared to Meson8, see: [4] > I would integrate these into the Meson8 driver (if we keep separate > drivers for Meson8 and Meson8b) when needed, because these definitely > don't justify adding a new pinctrl driver > > > Regards > Martin > > > [0] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/gpio.c > [1] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8b/gpio.c > [2] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/tool/m8_gpio.csv > [3] https://dn.odroid.com/S805/Datasheet/S805_Datasheet%20V0.8%2020150126.pdf > [4] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/gpio.c#L242 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html