Hi Arnd, Could you reply when you see the email? If your method doesn’t resolve the problem, we still want to use our old patchset. This guts driver had been discussed about one year and blocked many workaround upstream. So please help to review and comment soon. Thanks a lot. Best regards, Yangbo Lu > -----Original Message----- > From: Yangbo Lu > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:46 AM > To: 'Scott Wood'; Arnd Bergmann; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Mark Rutland; Ulf Hansson; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Qiang Zhao; Russell King; > Bhupesh Sharma; Joerg Roedel; Claudiu Manoil; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Kumar Gala; Rob Herring; Santosh Shilimkar; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Xiaobo Xie; Yang-Leo Li; iommu@lists.linux- > foundation.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/4] soc: fsl: add GUTS driver for QorIQ platforms > > Hi Arnd, > > Could you comment on these? > Thanks. > > > Best regards, > Yangbo Lu > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Scott Wood [mailto:oss@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 9:51 AM > > To: Arnd Bergmann; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Mark Rutland; Ulf Hansson; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > i2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Qiang Zhao; Russell > > King; Bhupesh Sharma; Joerg Roedel; Claudiu Manoil; > > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Kumar Gala; Rob Herring; Santosh > > Shilimkar; linux-arm- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Xiaobo Xie; > > Yang-Leo Li; iommu@lists.linux- foundation.org; Yangbo Lu > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] soc: fsl: add GUTS driver for QorIQ platforms > > > > On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 10:43 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 8:47:22 PM CEST Scott Wood wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 15:15 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/fsl/guts.c b/drivers/soc/fsl/guts.c new > > > > > file mode 100644 index 000000000000..2f30698f5bcf > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/fsl/guts.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Freescale QorIQ Platforms GUTS Driver > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it > > > > > +and/or modify > > > > > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as > > > > > +published by > > > > > + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the > > > > > +License, or > > > > > + * (at your option) any later version. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + > > > > > +#include <linux/io.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <linux/module.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/of_address.h> #include > > > > > +<linux/of_platform.h> #include <linux/sys_soc.h> > > > > > + > > > > > +#define GUTS_PVR 0x0a0 > > > > > +#define GUTS_SVR 0x0a4 > > > > > + > > > > > +struct guts { > > > > > + void __iomem *regs; > > > > > > > > We already have a struct to define guts. Why are you not using it? > > > > Why do you consider using it to be "abuse"? What if we want to > > > > move more guts functionality into this driver? > > > > > > This structure was in the original patch, I left it in there, only > > > removed the inclusion of the powerpc header file, which seemed to be > > > misplaced. > > > > I'm not refering "struct guts". I'm referring to changing "struct > > ccsr_guts __iomem *regs" into "void __iomem *regs". > > > > And it's not a powerpc header file. > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * Table for matching compatible strings, for device tree > > > > > + * guts node, for Freescale QorIQ SOCs. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +static const struct of_device_id fsl_guts_of_match[] = { > > > > > + /* For T4 & B4 Series SOCs */ > > > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-device-config-1.0", .data = "T4/B4 > > > > > series" }, > > > > [snip] > > > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-device-config-2.0", .data = "P > > > > > series" > > > > > > > > As noted in my comment on patch 3/4, these descriptions are > reversed. > > > > > > > > They're also incomplete. t2080 has device config 2.0. t1040 is > > > > described as > > > > 2.0 though it should probably be 2.1 (or better, drop the generic > > > > compatible altogether). > > > > > > Ok. Ideally I think we'd even look up the specific SoC names from > > > the SVC rather than the compatible string. I just didn't have a good > > > list for those to put in the driver. > > > > The list is in arch/powerpc/include/asm/mpc85xx.h but I don't know why > > we need to convert it to a string in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * syscon devices default to little-endian, but on powerpc we > > > > > have > > > > > + * existing device trees with big-endian maps and an absent > > > > > endianess > > > > > + * "big-property" > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_POWERPC) && > > > > > + !of_property_read_bool(dev->of_node, "big-endian")) > > > > > + guts->little_endian = true; > > > > > > > > This is not a syscon device (Yangbo's patch to add a guts node on > > > > ls2080 is the only guts node that says "syscon", and that was a > > > > leftover from earlier revisions and should probably be removed). > > > > Even if it were, where is it documented that syscon defaults to > > > > little-endian? > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regmap/regmap.txt > > > > > > We had a little screwup here, basically regmap (and by consequence, > > > syscon) always defaulted to little-endian way before that was > > > documented, so it's too late to change it, > > > > What causes a device node to fall under the jurisdiction of regmap.txt? > > Again, these nodes do not claim "syscon" compatibility. > > > > > although I agree it would have made sense to document regmap to > > > default to big-endian on powerpc. > > > > Please don't. It's enough of a mess as is; no need to start throwing > > in architecture ifdefs. > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/common-properties.txt says that > > > > the individual binding specifies the default. The default for > > > > this node should be big-endian because that's what existed before > > > > there was a need to describe the endianness. And we need an > > > > update to the guts binding to specify that. > > > > > > Good point. This proably means that specifying both the "guts" and > > "syscon" > > > compatible strings implies having to also specify the endianess > > > explicitly both ways, because otherwise we break one of the two > > bindings. > > > > Yes, but the node should only specify "guts". > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > + guts->regs = devm_ioremap_resource(dev, 0); > > > > > + if (!guts->regs) { > > > > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > > > > + kfree(guts); > > > > > + goto out; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + fsl_guts_init(dev, guts); > > > > > + ret = 0; > > > > > +out: > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static struct platform_driver fsl_soc_guts = { > > > > > + .probe = fsl_guts_probe, > > > > > + .driver.of_match_table = fsl_guts_of_match, }; > > > > > + > > > > > +module_platform_driver(fsl_soc_guts); > > > > > > > > Again, this means that the information is not available during > > > > early boot, such as in the clock driver. Thus we would not be > > > > able to convert clk -qoriq's direct mfspr(SPRN_SVR) into an > > > > soc_device_match() (or anything else that makes use of this file), > > > > nor would we be able to move its access of the guts RCW registers > > > > into this driver. > > > > > > Correct. Do we have a reason to convert the mfspr() though? I don't > > > really see an improvement over the current state if we do that, > > > > Then should we drop this patchset and put a similar PPC ifdef in > > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-esdhc.c? > > > > There's also the RCW access. You said in the patch 4/4 discussion > > that you di dn't like any random driver ioremapping the registers... > > > > > and for new devices > > > that might need the erratum workaround, we could add a DT property > > > that would be preferred to both. > > > > It's unlikely that we would know the erratum exists at the time the > > device tree is created. We also generally don't have separate device > > trees for each revision of a chip (and if we did, we'd have users that > > use the wrong one). > > > > -Scott ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��-��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
