Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Introduce QCOM CPUFREQ FW bindings

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On 19/06/18 08:53, Taniya Das wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/18/2018 2:51 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15/06/18 18:40, Taniya Das wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/15/2018 5:29 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> A future version of the HW engine, or more likely, a firmware
>>>> revision, will make more functionality available. Say, this needs
>>>> access to another register or two. This will require changing the DT
>>>> bindings. Instead, if you map the entire address space, you can just
>>>> add offsets to the new registers.
>>>>
>>>> So in this case, I think you should define the following addresses
>>>> (size 0x1400) for the two frequency domains
>>>>
>>>> 0x17d43000, 0x1400 (power cluster)
>>>> 0x17d45800, 0x1400 (perf cluster)
>>>>
>>>> And in the driver simply add offsets as follows:
>>>>
>>>> #define ENABLE_OFFSET               0x0
>>>> #define LUT_OFFSET                      0x110
>>>> #define PERF_DESIRED_OFFSET 0x920
>>>>
>>>
>>> The offsets could vary across versions of this IP and that is the reason
>>> to provide them through the DT and not define any such offsets.
>>>
>>
>> Just get compatibles to identify the version of the hardware if it can't
>> be probed and detected. Please don't use DT to get the addresses of each
>> register you use in the driver. That's neither scalable nor nice
>> solution to the problem.
>> Hello Sudeep and Amit,
> 
> Thanks for the comments, I am consolidating the understanding from the
> other emails in a single one.
> 
> I understand that you are looking for this IP to map the full region and
> define offsets according to access them.
> 
> But I still not sure how do you want this common driver to scale in the
> cases where the offsets could vary across version change.
> 

There are plenty of drivers that you can look at as example. TBH most of
the drivers implementing support for multiple versions of IP do
something on the similar lines.

>  DT
> ====
>   freq-node {
>     reg = < X x_size>;   Where X is the start of the IP address.
>   }
> 
> Driver code (The below representation is just for example).
> =============
> 
> V1
> #define ENABLE    0x0
> #define LUT_V1    0x110
> #define PERF_V1    0x920
> 
> V2
> #define LUT_V2    0x150
> #define PERF_V2    0x980
> 
> V3
> #define LUT_V3    0x120
> ....
> 
> Do you want me to use "compatible" flag to
> 
> if (compatible == v1)
>  enable =  readl_relaxed(X + LUT_V1);
> else if (compatible == v2)
>  enable = readl_relaxed(X + LUT_V2);
> else if (compatible == v3)
>  enable = readl_relaxed(X + LUT_V2);
> 

These are implementation details. But you should try to use compatibles
only in probe and just record the version in some variable or update the
offsets in some device specific structure so that you can use that
unconditionally for any access you make on that device.

> With the current design I do not need such compatible checks and unmap
> the ones which are not required after probe.

I am not sure what you mean by unmap after probe.

> Please let me know your comments.
> 

Please look at some drivers in the Linux tree for examples. Infact there
may be few drivers on QCOM SoC itself. What I am suggesting is the normal
practice in the drivers and you should see plenty of examples. Since I
was looking at some serial port patch, I can say you can have a look at
drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c which supports multiple versions from
different vendors. I am sure there are many simpler examples but AMBA PL011
just stood out.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep