On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 10:03:04AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/10/2022 02:08, Colin Foster wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:19:33PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 26/09/2022 02:29, Colin Foster wrote: > >>> The ocelot-ext driver is another sub-device of the Ocelot / Felix driver > >>> system, which currently supports the four internal copper phys. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Colin Foster <colin.foster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > ... > >>> + # Ocelot-ext VSC7512 > >>> + - | > >>> + spi { > >>> + soc@0 { > >> > >> soc in spi is a bit confusing. > >> > >> Does it even pass the tests? You have unit address but no reg. > > > > I omitted those from the documentation. Rob's bot is usually quick to > > alert me when I forgot to run dt_binding_check and something fails > > though. I'll double check, but I thought everything passed. > > > >> > >>> + compatible = "mscc,vsc7512"; > >> > >> > >>> + #address-cells = <1>; > >>> + #size-cells = <1>; > >>> + > >>> + ethernet-switch@0 { > >>> + compatible = "mscc,vsc7512-switch"; > >>> + reg = <0 0>; > >> > >> 0 is the address on which soc bus? > > > > This one Vladimir brought up as well. The MIPS cousin of this chip > > is the VSC7514. They have exactly (or almost exactly) the same hardware, > > except the 7514 has an internal MIPS while the 7512 has an 8051. > > > > Both chips can be controlled externally via SPI or PCIe. This is adding > > control for the chip via SPI. > > > > For the 7514, you can see there's an array of 20 register ranges that > > all get mmap'd to 20 different regmaps. > > > > (Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc,vsc7514-switch.yaml) > > > > switch@1010000 { > > compatible = "mscc,vsc7514-switch"; > > reg = <0x1010000 0x10000>, > > <0x1030000 0x10000>, > > <0x1080000 0x100>, > > <0x10e0000 0x10000>, > > <0x11e0000 0x100>, > > <0x11f0000 0x100>, > > <0x1200000 0x100>, > > <0x1210000 0x100>, > > <0x1220000 0x100>, > > <0x1230000 0x100>, > > <0x1240000 0x100>, > > <0x1250000 0x100>, > > <0x1260000 0x100>, > > <0x1270000 0x100>, > > <0x1280000 0x100>, > > <0x1800000 0x80000>, > > <0x1880000 0x10000>, > > <0x1040000 0x10000>, > > <0x1050000 0x10000>, > > <0x1060000 0x10000>, > > <0x1a0 0x1c4>; > > reg-names = "sys", "rew", "qs", "ptp", "port0", "port1", > > "port2", "port3", "port4", "port5", "port6", > > "port7", "port8", "port9", "port10", "qsys", > > "ana", "s0", "s1", "s2", "fdma"; > > > > > > The suggestion was to keep the device trees of the 7512 and 7514 as > > similar as possible, so this will essentially become: > > switch@71010000 { > > compatible = "mscc,vsc7512-switch"; > > reg = <0x71010000 0x10000>, > > <0x71030000 0x10000>, > > ... > > I don't understand how your answer relates to "reg=<0 0>;". How is it > going to become 0x71010000 if there is no other reg/ranges set in parent > nodes. The node has only one IO address, but you say the switch has 20 > addresses... > > Are we talking about same hardware? Yes. The switch driver for both the VSC7512 and VSC7514 use up to ~20 regmaps depending on what capabilities it is to have. In the 7514 they are all memory-mapped from the device tree. While the 7512 does need these regmaps, they are managed by the MFD, not the device tree. So there isn't a _need_ for them to be here, since at the end of the day they're ignored. The "reg=<0 0>;" was my attempt to indicate that they are ignored, but I understand that isn't desired. So moving forward I'll add all the regmaps back into the device tree. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >