On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Jonas Gorski <jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> bmips_be_defconfig supports Linux running on the following CM and DSL >>> SoCs: >>> >>> - BCM3384 (BMIPS5000) cable modem application processor, BE, SMP >>> - BCM3384 (BMIPS4355) cable modem "spare CPU"*, BE >>> - BCM6328 (BMIPS4355) ADSL chip, BE >> >> Is BMIPS435*5* intentional? I would have assumed at least 6328 is also >> MIPS4350 like BCM6368. > > Welcome back Jonas - and thanks for reviewing :-) > > According to my cheat sheet, BCM6328 has the newer BMIPS4355 core, > which includes the "DMA" features used for prefetching packet data. > BCM6368 has the old BMIPS4350. Ah, interesting tidbit. So I guess BCM6362, BCM63268 and BCM63381 also have BMIPS4355. >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/bmips.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/bmips.txt >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..4a8cd8f >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/brcm/bmips.txt >>> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ >>> +* Broadcom MIPS (BMIPS) CPUs >>> + >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: "brcm,bmips3300", "brcm,bmips4350", "brcm,bmips4380" >>> + "brcm,bmips5000" >>> + >>> +- mips-hpt-frequency: This is common to all CPUs in the system so it lives >>> + under the "cpus" node. >> >> Is it a good idea to hardcode this? Some SoC CPUs allow running with >> different frequencies, which will directly affect this. > > On some of the BCM7xxx kernels there is a timer peripheral that always > runs at 27 MHz. It is used to derive the CPU frequency at runtime, so > no hardcoding is necessary: AFAIK all BCM63xx chips have a timer peripheral with 4 or 5 timers running at 50 MHz, used as the HPT when using the BMIPS frequency scaling. > https://github.com/BlackPole/vuplus-kernel/blob/master/arch/mips/brcmstb/time.c#L119 > > On a generic BMIPS kernel it might be harder to rely on an external timer. > > Is there a better solution (or should we implement some sort of > fallback if the mips-hpt-frequency property is missing)? I guess that is the dtb's job to point out the correct system timer. >> Also I would >> assume this would break once we add support for runtime clock changes >> for BMIPS; at least on the DSL platform you can change the clock >> between 1/4 (IIRC) and 1/1 for power saving. > > I don't know the 435x's very well, but I believe all BMIPS CPUs allow > selecting between 1:1, 1:2, 1:4, and 1:8. BMIPS5000 also allows 1:16. > > FWIW, this feature is unstable on several of the 40nm chips. > > Also, some older versions of the core (65nm, 130nm) scaled down the > MIPS CP0 counter frequency when the base clock changed. The newer > BMIPS438x cores, and all BMIPS5000 cores, do not. CP0 $22,0 bit 6 on > BMIPS438x should be '1' if the counter frequency is fixed. Not sure > about BMIPS435x. According to pwrmngtclk.c,the bcm63xx bmipses might not have a fixed cp0 counter frequency and might scale with the cpu frequency. This also includes the BMIPS3300 in 6318. This isn't very clear; the code for snycing the cp0 count is enabled through a Kconfig symbol, but I don't see anything selecting it. So dunno. > We will have to put some thought into implementing cpufreq in a generic way... > >>> +SoCs: >>> + >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: "brcm,bcm3384", "brcm,bcm33843" >>> + "brcm,bcm3384-viper", "brcm,bcm33843-viper" >>> + "brcm,bcm6328", "brcm,bcm6368", >>> + "brcm,bcm7125", "brcm,bcm7346", "brcm,bcm7360", >>> + "brcm,bcm7420", "brcm,bcm7425" >>> + >>> +Boards: >>> + >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: "brcm,bcm93384wvg", "brcm,bcm93384wvg-viper" >>> + "brcm,bcm9ejtagprb", "brcm,bcm96368mvwg", >>> + "brcm,bcm97125cbmb", "brcm,bcm97346dbsmb", "brcm,bcm97360svmb", >>> + "brcm,bcm97420c", "brcm,bcm97425svmb" >> >> Should the list of supported boards really be hardcoded here/in the >> kernel? It doesn't match what the code does, as it (as far as I can >> tell) accepts dtbs without any of the board compatible ids when passed >> from bootloader. > > Honestly I'd prefer to nuke them from the bindings doc. But > checkpatch was complaining that they were undocumented. > > Any opinions? I don't think they should be there either. And checkpatch does not always need to be followed, it is ultimately only a suggestion (although a very strong one ;-) >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm9ejtagprb_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm96368mvwg_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm97125cbmb_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm97346dbsmb_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm97360svmb_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm97420c_begin; >>> +extern char __dtb_bcm97425svmb_begin; >> >> I think it would be a good idea to have the embedded dtbs optional, >> especially if you already provide an interface for passing a dtb >> pointer. > > So, our options include: > > 1) Use a bool option for each one; leave the setup.c heuristic logic > in place. Multiplatform kernels still work with existing bootloaders. > Need a bunch of new #ifdefs in this section of code. > > 2) Use a choice option to allow one DTS file (or no DTS file) to be compiled in. > > 3) Forbid compiling in DTS files; make people use a sensible > bootloader or wrapper. > > 4) Leave everything as-is. > > The short term plan can be different from the long term plan. > > What does everyone prefer? I'd go with 5) Include legacy board dtbs in the kernel (Y/n) which then selects BUILTIN_DTB. >>> +static void __init *find_dtb(void) >>> +{ >>> + u32 chip_id; >>> + char boardname[64] = ""; >>> + const struct bmips_board_list *b; >>> + >>> + /* Intended to somewhat resemble ARM; see Documentation/arm/Booting */ >>> + if (fw_arg0 == 0 && fw_arg1 == 0xffffffff) >>> + return phys_to_virt(fw_arg2); >> >> I know a bit late, but how about using the OF_DT_MAGIC (0xd00dfeed) >> for indicating that there is a device tree in arg2? > > No preference either way. Should we stick with the ARM convention, or > use a more unique magic number? I don't see anything wrong in reusing conventions, quite the contrary. >>> + /* >>> + * Unfortunately the CFE API doesn't seem to provide chip >>> + * identification, but we can check the entry point to see whether >>> + * the current platform is a DSL chip or STB chip. On STB, >>> + * CAE_STKSIZE = _regidx(13) = 13*8 = 104, so the first instruction is: >>> + * 0: 23bdff98 addi sp,sp,-104 >>> + */ >>> + if (__raw_readl((void *)fw_arg2) == 0x23bdff98) { >>> + chip_id = __raw_readl(REG_STB_CHIP_ID); >>> + cfe_init(fw_arg0, fw_arg2); >>> + cfe_getenv("CFE_BOARDNAME", boardname, sizeof(boardname)); >>> + } else { >>> + /* >>> + * This works on most modern chips, but will break on older >>> + * ones like 6358 >>> + */ >>> + chip_id = __raw_readl(REG_DSL_CHIP_ID); >> >> Unfortunately I don't know any good way to discriminate between the >> "old" and the "new" chips except by looking a the PRID and REV >> (BMIPS3300 <= 3.2 || BMIPS4350 <= 1.0 => 0xfff00000, BMIPS3300 >= 3.3 >> || BMIPS4350 >= 3.0 => 0xb0000000). > > I suspect that if somebody is motivated to support the older chips in > arch/mips/bmips, our setup.c will start borrowing the existing bcm63xx > logic. I wonder who that could be *whistle* > OTOH this could also be an opportunity to drop obsolete platforms that > have a small number of users or a large number of hacks. BCM6345/6338/6348 might be streching it a bit, but I think 6358 is still used in semi-recent devices. At least Broadcom still mentions it on their website [1]. Surprisingly it also mentions 6338, so I wonder if these are still produced. Also they seem to have dropped the 6328. >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* 4-digit parts use bits [31:16]; 5-digit parts use [27:8] */ >> >> This might be true for the STB chips, but the DSL 5-digit parts use >> [31:12]. And to add insult to insury, some 4-digit parts use [15:12] >> for the chip variant, so you can't just check [15:12] for 0 or != 0 >> either (I would assume 63381 and 6328 (variant 63281) will have both 1 >> at [15:12]. > > How unfortunate. A lot of effort/persuasion went into standardizing > this format on STB. > > I can change this to use a value/mask test for non-STB? Assuming we add the PRID/REV matching to chipid reg location from bcm63xx, we can use it at the same time for the width/offset of the chip name part. > > My 6328 says: > > # devmem 0x10000000 > 0x632830B0 Assuming this is the ejtag thingy, this is expected, as it uses a BCM63283 (no idea what the difference is to the 63281. Maybe some VoIP related stuff or so). I also have an actual BCM63281, but I'm too lazy to find an unused ttl-serial, so I'll just pretend it says 0x632810B0. > Will need to double check our 6329's (I think their upper halfword is > still 0x6328). That would be interesting, as 6369, 63169 and 63269 actually uses a ...9 chip id. According to broadcom code, same for 6319. There's also the mess of the 68xx gpon socs: 6818 and 6828 seem to use the "standard" upper 16 bit of the chipid register, but encode a variety of variants in their chipid: /* Force BCM681x variants to be BCM6816 or BCM6818 correctly) */ if( (r & 0xfff0) == 0x6810 ) { if ((r == 0x6811) || (r == 0x6815) || (r == 0x6817)) { r = 0x6818; } else { r = 0x6816; t = (int) (PERF->RevID & REV_ID_MASK); if ((t & 0xf0) == 0xA0) { r = 0x6818; } } } /* Force 6821 and 6822 to be BCM6828 */ if ((r == 0x6821) || (r == 0x6822)) r = 0x6828; 6838 seems to use only a nibble [7:4] for the chip id and the second one for the variant id [3:0]. WTF. Let's pretend it doesn't exist. Actually let's pretend bcm68xx does not exist at all for now. >>> + if (chip_id & 0xf0000000) >>> + chip_id >>= 16; >>> + else >>> + chip_id >>= 8; >>> + >>> + for (b = bmips_board_list; b->dtb; b++) { >>> + if (b->chip_id != chip_id) >>> + continue; >>> + if (b->boardname && strcmp(b->boardname, boardname)) >>> + continue; >>> + if (b->quirk_fn) >>> + b->quirk_fn(); >> >> Hmm, maybe move running the quirk out of here and into >> plat_mem_setup()? Currently e.g. a BCM6328 with a bootloader passed >> dtb won't have its quirk run. > > Good idea. My current line of thinking is to restructure quirks into > its own table, indexed by the compatible string. > >>> +int __init plat_of_setup(void) >>> +{ >>> + return __dt_register_buses("brcm,bmips", "simple-bus"); >> >> Huh, "brcm,bmips" does not appear anywhere else. How does this work? >> Should this be a required compatible? > > I saw other platforms passing in strings like "lantiq,falcon" and did > likewise... IIRC all the dtb files then also use "vendor,boardname", "lantiq,falcon"; as the compatible strings. I can think of three options/variants: 1) Use a generic "brcm,bmips". Tthis is similar to e.g. "marvell,kirkwood", but probably a bit too generic, and might imply compatibilty for future chips where there is none. 2) Construct "brcm,bcm%x", where x == chipid. This is what I am currently doing in [2]. 3) Similar to 2), but use of_flat_dt_is_compatible() to find out the SoC the dtb is written for, then use that as the expected chipid. It's a bit of a tautology, but code could work something like this: struct chipid_reg { char compatible[128]; u32 chipid; unsigned long reg; int shift; }; struct chipid_reg supported_chips[] = { { "brcm,bcm6328", 6328, KSEG1(0x1000000), 16 }, { "brcm,bcm6358", 6358, 0xfff00000, 16 }, { "brcm,bcm6368", 6368, KSEG1(0x1000000), 16 }, { "brcm,bcm63628", 63628, KSEG1(0x1000000), 12 }, }; ... unsigned long dt_root = of_get_flat_dt_root(); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(supported_chips); i++) { if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(dt_root, supported_chips[i].compatible)) { u32 val = __raw_readl((void __iomem *)supported_chips[i].reg); if ((val >> supported_chips[i].shift) != supported_chips[i].chipid) panic("unexpected chipid!"); return true; /* or setup the board compatible to it or whatever */ } } return false; This is probably the closest to a "generic" multiplatform kernel, as it will completely disregard the prid/whatever and just blindly follow the dtb. > I can experiment with removing that bus registration entirely to see > what happens. I'm rather surprised that it actually registered anything. I would have expected for the code to be like "ugh, the registered dtb does not have "brcm,bmips" as one of the compatible strings, so I'll ignore it and don't register any platform devices". > >> Minor stilistic nitpick: I would use >> >> dtb-$(CONFIG_BMIPS_MULTIPLATFORM) += \ >> bcm93384wvg.dtb \ >> >> so that adding a board before bcm963384wvg would only require an >> insert, not also a modification. > > OK > >>> diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm3384_common.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm3384_common.dtsi >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..448cb5b >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm3384_common.dtsi >>> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ >>> +/ { >>> + clocks { >>> + #address-cells = <1>; >> >> This does not really make sense, as there is no address used at all >> for the periph_clk. >> >>> + #size-cells = <0>; >>> + >>> + periph_clk: periph_clk@0 { >> >> Same for the @0 - there is no appropriate reg = <0>, so using an >> address here does not make sense. > > OK > >>> diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm6328.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm6328.dtsi >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..a7e397f >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/bcm6328.dtsi >>> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ >>> +/ { >>> + #address-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <1>; >>> + compatible = "brcm,bcm6328"; >>> + >>> + cpus { >>> + #address-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <0>; >>> + >>> + mips-hpt-frequency = <160000000>; >>> + >>> + cpu@0 { >>> + compatible = "brcm,bmips4350"; >>> + device_type = "cpu"; >>> + reg = <0>; >>> + }; >> >> Since there are SMP-enabled variants, maybe it should have its second >> thread documented here (but defaulting to "disabled")? > > That looks like a goof. There is code in setup.c that knows whether > to enable/disable CPU1 on 6328 based on OTP. Will fix. > >>> + cpu_intc: cpu_intc@0 { >> >> It does not have an address, so it should not have @0 in the node name I think. > > I have no preference either way, but > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/cpu_irq.txt has the "@0". Still looks wrong. Maybe the device-tree folks could throw in their two cents. >> >>> + #address-cells = <0>; >>> + compatible = "mti,cpu-interrupt-controller"; >>> + >>> + interrupt-controller; >>> + #interrupt-cells = <1>; >>> + }; >>> + >>> + periph_intc: periph_intc@10000024 { >>> + compatible = "brcm,bcm7120-l2-intc"; >>> + reg = <0x10000024 0x4 0x1000002c 0x4 >>> + 0x10000020 0x4 0x10000028 0x4>; >> >> The "lowest" register address you use is 0x10000020, so the name >> should arguably be periph_intc@10000020, not periph_intc@10000024. I >> guess the second cpu block (10000030 - 1000003c) wired to hw irq 3 can >> be added later. > > OK > >> This will easily translate to a lot of io(re)map calls in case of >> 63268/6318 when describing both cpu blocks ( a total of 16 "reg"s). >> >> Also I wonder how you properly describe the intc of 63381, where it >> has separate mask registers, but a shared status register. > > If you aren't putting any IRQs on CPU1 you can probably get away with > only mentioning the status register once, for now. > > irq-bcm7120-l2.c will need some additional work before it can handle > multiple CPUs. I expected that, and supposedly the performance suffers anyway if you don't fix the irqs to one of the cpus, so I'm fine with having only one of the cpu blocks documented for now. Jonas [1] http://www.broadcom.com/products/Broadband-Carrier-Access/xDSL-CPE-Solutions [2] http://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt.git;a=blob;f=target/linux/brcm63xx/patches-3.14/367-MIPS-BCM63XX-add-support-for-loading-DTB.patch;h=577df55d0ebf4a9f7977a37d993d3e4c2abe3461;hb=HEAD
