[U-Boot] [PATCH] fdt: __of_translate_address(): check parent's 'ranges' before translate

[Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>]

Hello Stephen,

On 01/12/2016 05:43 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 03:25 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>> Hello Stephen,
>>
>> On 01/11/2016 05:47 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2016 04:21 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>>>> Hello Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On 01/07/2016 07:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 01/07/2016 04:40 AM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>>>>>> The present implementation of __of_translate_address() taken
>>>>>> from the Linux, is designed for translate bus/child address
>>>>>> mappings by using 'ranges' property - and it doesn't allow
>>>>>> for checking an address for a device's node with zero size-cells.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'size-cells > 0' is required for bus/child address mapping,
>>>>>> but is not required for non-memory mapped address, e.g.: I2C chip.
>>>>>> Then when we need only raw 'reg' property's value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the I2C device address goes to a single-cell reg property,
>>>>>> support for that case is welcome, but currently calling
>>>>>> dev_get_addr()
>>>>>> for I2C device will return 'FDT_ADDR_T_NONE', and print the warning:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> warning:
>>>>>> __of_translate_address: Bad cell count for 'some-dev'
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch takes the wrong approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> It simply doesn't make sense to /attempt/ to translate an I2C address
>>>>> into an MMIO address space. It's a nonsensical operation; no such
>>>>> translation is possible under any circumstances because I2C and MMIO
>>>>> addresses mean completely different things and simply can't be
>>>>> translated to each-other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than making this nonsensical operation succeed in a way that
>>>>> gives the desired no-op result, the nonsensical operation simply
>>>>> shouldn't be performed in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, the example with I2C may be little confusing - I could use some
>>>> general naming convention. However, this patch updates FDT-related code
>>>> only.
>>>>
>>>> In one of your previous e-mails, you well argued that we shouldn't use
>>>> dev_get_reg() for some buses, since they have a different 'reg'
>>>> meaning.
>>>>
>>>> You are right, using dev_get_addr() as universal function may be
>>>> nonsensical.
>>>>
>>>> Please note, that the present implementation of function:
>>>> '__of_translate_address()' - allows for 1:1 translation, but only if
>>>> '#size-cells' exists. So the below case is possible:
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> parent {
>>>>      address-cells = <1>;
>>>>      size-cells = <1>;
>>>>      reg = <0x10000000 0x1000>;
>>>>
>>>>      child {
>>>>          reg = <0xa00 0x100>;
>>>>      };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> dev_get_reg(child) - will return '0xa00'
>>>> ----------------------
>>>>
>>>> If we don't need the address length, we can define:
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> parent {
>>>>      address-cells = <1>;
>>>>      size-cells = <0>;
>>>>      reg = <0x10000000 0x1000>;
>>>>
>>>>      child {
>>>>          reg = <0xa00>;
>>>>      };
>>>> };
>>>
>>> This case won't ever appear in a correctly written DT where reg
>>> represents an MMIO address; MMIO addresses always have sizes, and hence
>>> can't have size-cells=0. Hence, translating through a DT structures like
>>> that is an error case, and shouldn't work.
>>
>> As we found out, the 'reg' property can represent not only MMIO, but may
>> have other meaning,
>
> Of course.
>
>> so the above case is possible.
>
> Yes and no.
>
> That DT snippet is certainly possible.
>
> However, that's irrelevant to whether address translation should be
> attempted across that boundary. *That* is not legal and should not be
> attempted.
>

Going through your suggestions I took your side.
You are on Cc in the new patchset.

>  > The 'reg' for the
>> parent bus can represent MMIO (depends on what its parent defines) and
>> the child is non-MMIO.
>
> Correct.
>
>> You won't allow to use dev_get_addr() for other than MMIO addresses.
>> Ok, I have no more arguments and no more time.
>
> "You" is incorrect. This has absolutely nothing to do with me, but
> rather the rule is imposed by the semantics of device tree.
>
> Also, I never said that dev_get_addr() must not be used for non-MMIO
> addresses. In fact, I offered a suggestion to make it work correctly.
> What I actually stated is that address translation must not be attempted
> across boundaries between address spaces, since it is semantically
> non-sensical.
>

Ok, please don't take it personally:), it was just how I understood your 
opinion.

As you know the specification is not so clean, I thought, that checking 
the existence of "ranges" in parent node - is enough to provide proper 
"translation" (or rather choosing the root address space), when 
size-cells == 0. However, checking this condition is probably not 
enough, but you didn't provide a device-tree example to give it some light.

Also maybe the translation is a bad word here, since we know that it's 
not MMIO translatable address.

For me, this patch is okay.
If I call it for I2C chip and it returns the chip address in I2C address 
space - then I can assume, that this is correct.

Since, at present I2C subsystem takes the 'reg' as property's value, it 
looks that there should be no difference when using modified dev_get_reg().

However the main reason for this change was not I2C code update, but 
fixing Exynos GPIO driver which uses DTB in a quite different way than 
the others.

So, I don't need to put the pressure for applying an improvement like 
this one - because it can be fixed in a more proper way.

>> My issue can be also fixed by removing dev_get_addr() call from Exynos
>> GPIO driver - so I will do this and within this change, will also revert
>> the commit:
>> "fdt: fix address cell count checking in fdt_translate_address()"
>
> That sounds fine. It'd be better to introduce some code into the I2C
> subsystem to handle this, but the approach you mention should work in
> practice.
>
>

So finally, as you can see at the new patches:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/566584/
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/566587/

I made other quick fix. This should be extended by ranges to be proper 
in 100%, but Linux don't use it for this platform and I don't see the 
reason for adding it to U-Boot.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com