Hello,
On Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 8:22 PM CET, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:40 AM Théo Lebrun <theo.lebrun@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 6:28 PM CET, Théo Lebrun wrote:
> > > On Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 4:14 PM CET, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 07:46:49PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
[...]
> > > > > + };
> > > > > +
> > > > > + pinctrl-b {
> > > > > + compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-b-pinctrl";
> > > > > + #pinctrl-cells = <1>;
> > > > > + };
> > > > > + };
> > > >
> > > > This can all be simplified to:
> > > >
> > > > system-controller@e00000 {
> > > > compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-olb", "syscon";
> > > > reg = <0xe00000 0x400>;
> > > > #reset-cells = <2>;
> > > > #clock-cells = <1>;
> > > > clocks = <&xtal>;
> > > > clock-names = "ref";
> > > >
> > > > pins { ... };
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > There is no need for sub nodes unless you have reusable blocks or each
> > > > block has its own resources in DT.
> > >
> > > That is right, and it does simplify the devicetree as you have shown.
> > > However, the split nodes gives the following advantages:
> > >
> > > - Devicetree-wise, it allows for one alias per function.
> > > `clocks = <&clocks EQ5C_PLL_CPU>` is surely more intuitive
> > > than `clocks = <&olb EQ5C_PLL_CPU>;`. Same for reset.
>
> clocks: resets: pinctrl: system-controller@e00000 {
>
> > >
> > > - It means an MFD driver must be implemented, adding between 100 to 200
> > > lines of boilerplate code to the kernel.
>
> From a binding perspective, not my problem... That's Linux details
> defining the binding. What about u-boot, BSD, future versions of Linux
> with different structure?
>
> I don't think an MFD is required here. A driver should be able to be
> both clock and reset provider. That's pretty common. pinctrl less so.
@Rob & @Krzysztof: following Krzysztof's question about the memory map
and adding ressources to the system-controller, I was wondering if the
following approach would be more suitable:
olb: system-controller@e00000 {
compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-olb", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
reg = <0 0xe00000 0x0 0x400>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
clocks: clock-controller {
compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-clk";
reg = <0x02c 0x7C>;
#clock-cells = <1>;
clocks = <&xtal>;
clock-names = "ref";
};
reset: reset-controller {
compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-reset";
reg = <0x004 0x08>, <0x120 0x04>, <0x200 0x34>;
reg-names = "d0", "d2", "d1";
#reset-cells = <2>;
};
pinctrl0: pinctrl-a {
compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-a-pinctrl";
reg = <0x0B0 0x30>;
};
pinctrl1: pinctrl-b {
compatible = "mobileye,eyeq5-b-pinctrl";
reg = <0x0B0 0x30>;
};
};
It highlights that they are in fact separate controllers and not one
device. The common thing between them is that they were
custom-implemented by Mobileye and therefore all registers were put in
a single block.
Else we'll go with the driver that implements both the clock & reset
providers. It'd live in drivers/clk/ I believe, as this is where other
drivers of the sort live.
> > > - It means one pinctrl device for the two banks. That addresses your
> > > comment on [PATCH v3 10/17]. This is often done and would be doable
> > > on this platform. However it means added logic to each individual
> > > function of pinctrl-eyeq5.
>
> If it makes things easier, 2 'pins' sub-nodes is fine. That's just
> container nodes.
>
> > > Overall it makes for less readable code, for code that already looks
> > > more complex than it really is.
> > >
> > > My initial non-public version of pinctrl-eyeq5 was using this method
> > > (a device handling both banks) and I've leaned away from it.
> >
> > I had forgotten one other reason:
> >
> > - Reusability does count for something. Other Mobileye platforms exist,
> > and the system controller stuff is more complex on those. Multiple
> > different OLB blocks, etc. But my understanding is that
> > per-peripheral logic is reused across versions.
>
> IME, this stuff never stays exactly the same from chip to chip.
If it helps, I have access to the downstream vendor kernel to see how
things work there. It supports the next generation of Mobileye
hardware.
Regards,
--
Théo Lebrun, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
