On Thu, 21 May 2015, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 09:40:01AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 May 2015, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:35:51AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 19 May 2015, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Andrew Bresticker
> > > > > <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 13/05/15 15:39, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > > >>> > On Mon, 04 May 2015, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >> Add a binding document for the XUSB host complex on NVIDIA Tegra124
> > > > > >>> >> and later SoCs. The XUSB host complex includes a mailbox for
> > > > > >>> >> communication with the XUSB micro-controller and an xHCI host-controller.
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >>> >> ---
> > > > > >>> >> Changes from v7:
> > > > > >>> >> - Move non-shared resources into child nodes.
> > > > > >>> >> New for v7.
> > > > > >>> >> ---
> > > > > >>> >> .../bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >>> >> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > > > > >>> >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
> > > > > >>> >>
> > > > > >>> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
> > > > > >>> >> new file mode 100644
> > > > > >>> >> index 0000000..bc50110
> > > > > >>> >> --- /dev/null
> > > > > >>> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
> > > > > >>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > > > > >>> >> +NVIDIA Tegra XUSB host copmlex
> > > > > >>> >> +==============================
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> +The XUSB host complex on Tegra124 and later SoCs contains an xHCI host
> > > > > >>> >> +controller and a mailbox for communication with the XUSB micro-controller.
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> +Required properties:
> > > > > >>> >> +--------------------
> > > > > >>> >> + - compatible: For Tegra124, must contain "nvidia,tegra124-xusb".
> > > > > >>> >> + Otherwise, must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-xusb", "nvidia,tegra124-xusb"'
> > > > > >>> >> + where <chip> is tegra132.
> > > > > >>> >> + - reg: Must contain the base and length of the XUSB FPCI registers.
> > > > > >>> >> + - ranges: Bus address mapping for the XUSB block. Can be empty since the
> > > > > >>> >> + mapping is 1:1.
> > > > > >>> >> + - #address-cells: Must be 2.
> > > > > >>> >> + - #size-cells: Must be 2.
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> +Example:
> > > > > >>> >> +--------
> > > > > >>> >> + usb@0,70098000 {
> > > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb";
> > > > > >>> >> + reg = <0x0 0x70098000 0x0 0x1000>;
> > > > > >>> >> + ranges;
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> + #address-cells = <2>;
> > > > > >>> >> + #size-cells = <2>;
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> + usb-host@0,70090000 {
> > > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci";
> > > > > >>> >> + ...
> > > > > >>> >> + };
> > > > > >>> >> +
> > > > > >>> >> + mailbox {
> > > > > >>> >> + compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox";
> > > > > >>> >> + ...
> > > > > >>> >> + };
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > This doesn't appear to be a proper MFD. I would have the USB and
> > > > > >>> > Mailbox devices probe seperately and use a phandle to point the USB
> > > > > >>> > device to its Mailbox.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > usb@xyz {
> > > > > >>> > mboxes = <&xusb-mailbox, [chan]>;
> > > > > >>> > };
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I am assuming that Andrew had laid it out like this to reflect the hw
> > > > > >>> structure. The mailbox and xhci controller are part of the xusb
> > > > > >>> sub-system and hence appear as child nodes. My understanding is that for
> > > > > >>> device-tree we want the device-tree structure to reflect the actual hw.
> > > > > >>> Is this not the case?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes, the DT files should reflect h/w. I have requested to see what
> > > > > >> the memory map looks like, so I might provide a more appropriate
> > > > > >> solution to accepting a pretty pointless MFD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FWIW, the address map for XUSB looks like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > XUSB_HOST: 0x70090000 - 0x7009a000
> > > > > > xHCI registers: 0x70090000 - 0x70098000
> > > > > > FPCI configuration registers: 0x70098000 - 0x70099000
> > > > > > IPFS configuration registers: 0x70099000 - 0x7009a000
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Two solutions spring to mind. You can either call
> > > > > >> of_platform_populate() from the USB driver, as some already do:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c:
> > > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-keystone.c:
> > > > > >> error = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c:
> > > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c:
> > > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, qdwc->dev);
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-st.c:
> > > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
> > > > > >> drivers/usb/musb/musb_am335x.c:
> > > > > >> ret = of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This still requires a small, separate driver to setup the regmap and
> > > > > > do of_platform_populate(). The only difference is it lives in
> > > > > > drivers/usb/ instead of drivers/mfd/.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Or use the "simple-mfd", which is currently in -next:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> git show next/master:Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not too opposed to this, but Thierry was when I brought this up
> > > > > > before. The issue here is that if we ever have to do something
> > > > > > besides setting up a regmap in the MFD, we'd have to change the
> > > > > > binding and break DT backwards-compatibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any thoughts on this? A minimal MFD seems to be the best way to
> > > > > future-proof this binding/driver should it need to be extended in the
> > > > > future. If this is a firm NAK from you however, I'll need to let
> > > > > Jassi now so that he can un-queue the mailbox patches for 4.2....
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting to hear Thierry's thoughts. However, I am unconvinced
> > > > that you need an MFD driver for this and refuse to take a shell (read
> > > > "pointless") one on an "if we ever ..." clause.
> > > >
> > > > Will you break backwards capability though? I'm not sure you will.
> > > > Old DTBs will still use 'simple-mfd' and probe the devices in the
> > > > normal way. *If* you introduce an MFD driver at a later date then the
> > > > old DTB will miss out the *new* functionality, which is expected and
> > > > accepted.
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused by the simple-mfd approach. The only code I see in
> > > linux-next for this is a single line that adds the "simple-mfd" string
> > > to the OF device ID table in drivers/of/platform.c. As far as I can tell
> > > this will merely cause child devices to be created. There won't be a
> > > shared regmap and resources won't be set up properly either. Having a
> > > proper MFD driver seems to be the only way to achieve what we need.
> > >
> > > The reason why every other simple-mfd users seems to get away with this
> > > is because they also match on syscon and that sets up a regmap of its
> > > own and the child device drivers use the syscon API to get at it. So I
> > > don't see how we can make use of simple-mfd to achieve what we need,
> > > unless we essentially copy what syscon does (but do proper resource
> > > management while at it).
> >
> > If you have shared resources and your device isn't classed as a syscon
> > device then yes, simple-mfd probably isn't suitable for this use-case.
> > You might need to go into more detail with regards to "proper resource
> > management", as I'm not entirely sure I agree.
> >
> > Still, this doesn't change the fact that, from what I've seen, I still
> > don't think you need a dedicated MFD driver.
> >
> > What do you think of:
> >
> > usb-host@0,70090000 {
> > compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci";
> > reg = <0x0 0x70090000 0x0 0x80CF>,
> > <0x0 0x70098800 0x0 0x0800>,
> > <0x0 0x70099000 0x0 0x1000>;
> >
> > /* Something from the datasheet */
> > reg-names = "xhci-before-mbox", "xhci-after-mbox", "ipfs";
> >
> > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 39 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > ranges;
> >
> > xusb_mbox: mailbox {
> > compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox";
> > reg = <0x0 0x700980e0 0x0 0x13>,
> > <0x0 0x70098428 0x0 0x03>;
> >
> > /* Something from the datasheet */
> > reg-names = "mbox-one", "mbox-two";
> > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 40 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > };
> > };
> >
> > Then hvae the XHCI driver call of_platform_populate() as I proposed
> > above?
>
> That's a little bonghits. It requires the drivers to jump through hoops
> to properly manage register accesses (needs to differentiate on the base
> depending on the register offset). So if you're going to NAK the MFD
> approach I'd rather go a completely different route and keep only a top-
> level node in DT here.
>
> One of the problems that the MFD design tries to solve is that the XHCI
> controller needs a reference to the mailbox and the pad controller for a
> PHY. The pad controller at the same time requires a reference to the
> mailbox, so we have a circular dependency that we can only resolve by
> introducing two separate devices, instantiated by some top-level entity.
> For that reason I don't think your proposal is going to work either. The
> circular dependency can't be broken because the XHCI driver will not be
> able to of_platform_populate() before getting a PHY, and the PHY will
> never show up until of_platform_populate() is called.
>
> So if this isn't going to be an MFD, then I think we should simply go
> and instantiate platform devices from the XUSB driver directly. The
> problem arising from that is that we have no place to put the top-level
> driver. We could take it into drivers/soc/tegra, or perhaps even have it
> in the XHCI driver.
>
> If we instantiate platform devices we can either set up the resources
> such that we don't have to jump through hoops (I think the resource tree
> will allow that) or set up a shared regmap. The latter might be the
> easier way out, though it'd also be copying much of what MFD does, but
> so be it if that's the only way we can get the matter settled.
I understand the difficulties identified and empathise with your
situation. I just can't bring myself to justify that a USB device
which has it's own Mailbox is an MFD. If you take a look above, you
can see some examples of other USB drivers registering sub-devices. I
think you can make this work well for your setup.
> > > There is also the matter of clocks, resets, power supplies, etc. which
> > > simple-mfd can't take into account in its current form. From a hardware
> > > point of view, (some of) the clocks and resets are shared by the XHCI
> > > and the mailbox blocks, so the device tree node would have to take that
> > > into account. And a driver would also have to know which clocks, resets
> > > and power supplies to probe and the order in which they need to be
> > > enabled. simple-mfd doesn't provide any of that currently, so we'd
> > > likely need to hack around that in all sorts of weird ways in the child
> > > drivers. It makes much more sense for a top-level MFD driver to set up
> > > the shared hardware resources and then instantiate the child devices and
> > > let the drivers for those only care about the child-specific resources.
> > >
> > > A catch-all driver will inevitably lead to implementing a midlayer with
> > > potentially all sorts of quirks to make it work with the various devices
> > > out there.
> > >
> > > A much better implementation, in my opinion, would be to make simple-mfd
> > > a subclassable object and then have drivers use a helper library to call
> > > code that is common for simple-mfd kinds of devices. Something like this
> > > for example:
> > >
> > > struct tegra_xusb {
> > > ...
> > > struct mfd_simple mfd;
> > > ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > static int tegra_xusb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > {
> > > struct tegra_xusb *xusb;
> > > ...
> > > err = mfd_simple_register(&xusb->mfd);
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Now all these drivers reuse all the code provided by the mfd_simple
> > > helper, which will instantiate the children, but it is also very easy to
> > > tie in the platform-specific glue (clocks, resets, regulators, ...) via
> > > the device-specific drivers.
> >
> > I'm not keen on creating a not-so-simple-mfd driver. Let's work with
> > what we've got for the time being.
>
> What we currently have is not a driver at all, it's merely an alias for
> simple-bus.
Right, which is exactly what it was designed to be. Initially we were
using simple-bus, but some people (rightly) thought this an abuse 'cos
MFD isn't really a bus.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
