On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:27:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:22 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 01:30:10PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:52:48AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 11:35 PM Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > From: Takeshi Kihara <takeshi.kihara.df@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch adds I2C-DVFS device node for the R8A77990 SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Takeshi Kihara <takeshi.kihara.df@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Kaneko <ykaneko0929@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > >
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77990.dtsi
>
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > cpus {
> > > > > @@ -337,6 +338,22 @@
> > > > > reg = <0 0xe6060000 0 0x508>;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > + i2c_dvfs: i2c@e60b0000 {
> > > > > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > > > > + compatible = "renesas,iic-r8a77990",
> > > >
> > > > "renesas,iic-r8a77990" is not yet documented.
> > >
> > > Thanks, as per my comment below I wonder if as well as documenting
> > > "renesas,iic-r8a77990" we also to teach the driver about it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + "renesas,rcar-gen3-iic",
> > > > > + "renesas,rmobile-iic";
> > > >
> > > > Also, IIC on R-Car E3 does not have the automatic transmission registers.
> > > > Does this affect claiming compatibility with the family-specific or generic
> > > > compatible values?
> > >
> > > My cursory reading of the driver indicates that only register that is
> > > used by it but documented as not existing on E3 is ICSTART (offset 0x70).
> > >
> > > It seems to me that we should confirm with Renesas that the register does
> > > indeed not exist - as this patch comes from the BSP which implies it is
> > > being used there. And if it does not exist we should try teaching the
> > > driver not to use ICSTART via the "renesas,iic-r8a77990" compat string.
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Further examination by Wolfram Sang has shown that the code in question is
> > only used on the r8a7740. I don't think there is any compatibility issue
> > for r8a77990 when using the current driver.
>
> "When using the current driver".
> Do we want to claim compatibility with "renesas,rcar-gen3-iic" and/or
> "renesas,rmobile-iic"?
Thinking a bit more since I wrote my previous email.
It seems that the r8a77990 has a different feature set to other R-Car Gen3
SoCs but that the current driver implementation "renesas,rcar-gen3-iic"
and "renesas,rmobile-iic" do not exceed that feature set.
In future we could expand the features supported by the driver for other
Gen3 SoCs beyond what is supported for r8a77990. If we chose to describe
r8a77990 as compatible with renesas,rcar-gen3-iic then that implies those
new features would not be activated by matching on "renesas,rcar-gen3-iic",
though we could choose to control that using soc_match. Conversely if we
decide that r8a77990 is not compatible with renesas,rcar-gen3-iic then we
have more freedom to move with regards to adding features not supported by
r8a77990 to renesas,rcar-gen3-iic in future.
So perhaps it would be wise to be conservative and, for now,
not document r8a77990 as being compatible with renesas,iic-r8a77990.
I'm tempted to say that renesas,rmobile-iic is a lowest common denominator
and r8a77990 can be documented as being compatible with it. But we could
say the same of renesas,rcar-gen3-iic.
What do you think?
