On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:27 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 24/01/2024 04:37, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:12 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 23/01/2024 18:30, Peter Griffin wrote:
> >>>>> dev_warn(wdt->dev, "Couldn't get RST_STAT register\n");
> >>>>> else if (rst_stat & BIT(wdt->drv_data->rst_stat_bit))
> >>>>> @@ -698,14 +699,6 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>>> if (ret)
> >>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (wdt->drv_data->quirks & QUIRKS_HAVE_PMUREG) {
> >>>>> - wdt->pmureg = syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node,
> >>>>> - "samsung,syscon-phandle");
> >>>>> - if (IS_ERR(wdt->pmureg))
> >>>>> - return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(wdt->pmureg),
> >>>>> - "syscon regmap lookup failed.\n");
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Continuing topic from the binding: I don't see how you handle probe
> >>>> deferral, suspend ordering.
> >>>
> >>> The current implementation is simply relying on exynos-pmu being
> >>> postcore_initcall level.
> >>>
> >>> I was just looking around for any existing Linux APIs that could be a
> >>> more robust solution. It looks like
> >>>
> >>> of_parse_phandle()
> >>> and
> >>> of_find_device_by_node();
> >>>
> >>> Are often used to solve this type of probe deferral issue between
> >>> devices. Is that what you would recommend using? Or is there something
> >>> even better?
> >>
> >> I think you should keep the phandle and then set device link based on
> >> of_find_device_by_node(). This would actually improve the code, because
> >> syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle() does not create device links.
> >
> > I kinda agree with this. Just because we no longer use a syscon API to
> > find the PMU register address doesn't mean the WDT doesn't depend on
> > the PMU.
> >
> > However, I think we should move to a generic "syscon" property. Then I
> > can add support for "syscon" property to fw_devlink and then things
> > will just work in terms of probe ordering, suspend/resume and also
> > showing the dependency in DT even if you don't use the syscon APIs.
> >
> > Side note 1:
> >
> > I think we really should officially document a generic syscon DT
> > property similar to how we have a generic "clocks" or "dmas" property.
> > Then we can have a syscon_get_regmap() that's like so:
> >
> > struct regmap *syscon_get_regmap(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > return syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle(dev->of_node, "syscon");
> > }
> >
> > Instead of every device defining its own bespoke DT property to do the
> > exact same thing. I did a quick "back of the envelope" grep on this
> > and I get about 143 unique properties just to get the syscon regmap.
> > $ git grep -A1 syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle | grep '"' | sed -e
> > 's/^[^"]*//' -e 's/"[^"]*$/"/' | sort | uniq | wc -l
> > 143
>
> Sorry, generic "syscon" property won't fly with DT maintainers, because
> there is no such thing as syscon in any of hardware.
Then why do we allow a "syscon" compatible string and nodes? If the
"syscon" property isn't clear enough, we can make it something like
gpios and have it be <whatever>-syscon or have syscon-names property
if you want to give it a name.
143 bespoke properties all to say "here are some registers I need to
twiddle that's outside my regmap" doesn't seem great.
> >
> > Side note 2:
> >
> > How are we making sure that it's the exynos-pmu driver that ends up
> > probing the PMU and not the generic syscon driver? Both of these are
> > platform drivers. And the exynos PMU device lists both the exynos
> > compatible string and the syscon property. Is it purely a link order
> > coincidence?
>
> initcall ordering
Both these drivers usr postcore_initcall(). So it's purely because
soc/ is listed earlier in drivers/Makefile than mfd/. And as soon as
drivers are made into modules this is going to break. This is
terrible. If you want to have a modular system, this is going to throw
in a wrench.
-Saravana
