From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 18:29:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CALszF6DHazhN6+hGShyrmqtMrPod0hdb8mHAwK-GWfRxXzy7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1431158038-3813-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
	<3125409.QXbEmPolyh@wuerfel>
	<55536BC2.30603@linaro.org>
	<11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>, Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc>
List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org

2015-05-13 17:28 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2015 16:20:34 Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> For the all reset bits:
>>
>>    clock idx = reset idx + 256
>>
>> The opposite is not true; the clock bits are a superset of the reset
>> bits (the reset bits act on cells but some cells have >1 clock).
>
> Ok, in that case, I would strongly recommend subtracting that 256
> offset keeping the numbers the same, to remove the function-type
> macros.
>
>> >> However there are a couple of clocks without gating just before the
>> >> clock reaches the peripheral:
>> >>
>> >> 1. A hard coded /8. I think this will have to be given a synthetic
>> >>      number.
>> >
>> > If this is just a divider, why not use a separate DT node for that,
>> > like this:
>> >
>> >          clock {
>> >                  compatible = "fixed-factor-clock";
>> >                  clocks = <&parentclk>;
>> >                  #clock-cells = <0>;
>> >                  clock-div = <8>;
>> >                  clock-mult = <1>;
>> >          };
>> >
>> > No need to assign a number for this.
>>
>> I'd wondered about doing that.
>>
>> It will certainly work but it seemed a bit odd to me to have one (really
>> tiny) part of the RCC cell included seperately in the platform
>> description whilst all the complicated bits end up aggregated into the
>> RCC cell.
>>
>> Is there much prior art that uses this type of trick to avoid having
>> magic numbers into the bindings?
>
> Are you sure that divider is actually part of the RCC?
>
>> >> 2. Ungated dividers. For these I am using the bit offset of the LSB of
>> >>      the mux field.
>> >
>> > Do these ones also come with resets?
>>
>> No. They mostly run to the core and its intimate peripherals (i.e. only
>> reset line comes from WDT).
>
> Ok.
>
>> >> So I think there is only one value that is completely unrelated to the
>> >> hardware and will use a magic constant instead.
>> >>
>> >> I had planned to macros similar to the STM32F4_AxB_RESET() family of
>> >> macros in both clk driver and DT in order to reuse the bit layouts from
>> >> dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h .
>> >>
>> >> Normal case would have looked like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_CLK(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> Without the macros it looks like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc 257>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc 513>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> However we could perhaps be more literate even if we don't use the macros?
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc ((0x20*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc ((0x40*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >
>> > How about #address-cells = <2>, so you can do
>> >
>> >             resets = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >             clocks = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >
>> > with the first cell being an index for the block and the second cell the
>> > bit number within that block.
>>
>> That would suit me very well (although is the 0x20/0x40 not the 8 that
>> we would need in the middle column).
>
> We don't normally use register offsets in DT. The number 8 here instead
> would indicate block 8, where each block is four bytes wide. Using the
> same index here for reset and clock would also help readability.

My view is that it makes the bindings usage very complex.
Also, it implies we have a specific compatible for stm32f429, whereas
we didn't need with my earlier proposals.
Indeed, the reset driver will need to know the offset of every reset
registers, because:
  1. The AHB registers start at RCC offset 0x10 (up to 0x18)
  2. The APB registers start at RCC offset 0x20 (up to 0x24).
We have a gap between AHB and APB registers, so how do we map the
index for the block you propose?
Should the gap be considered as a block, or we should skip it?

I'm afraid it will not be straightforward for a reset user to
understand how to use this bindings.

Either my v7 or v8 versions would have made possible to use a single
compatible for STM32 series.
If we stick with one of these, we could even think to have a "generic"
reset driver, as it could be compatible with sunxi driver bindings.

What is your view?

Kind regards,
Maxime

>
>         Arnd

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934250AbbEMQ3Q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 May 2015 12:29:16 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:36748 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752929AbbEMQ3I (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 May 2015 12:29:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
References: <1431158038-3813-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
	<3125409.QXbEmPolyh@wuerfel>
	<55536BC2.30603@linaro.org>
	<11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 18:29:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CALszF6DHazhN6+hGShyrmqtMrPod0hdb8mHAwK-GWfRxXzy7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU
From: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>, Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>,
        Antti Palosaari <crope@iki.fi>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <Nikolay.Borisov@arm.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicolae Rosia <nicolae.rosia@gmail.com>, Kamil Lulko <rev13@wp.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2015-05-13 17:28 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2015 16:20:34 Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> For the all reset bits:
>>
>>    clock idx = reset idx + 256
>>
>> The opposite is not true; the clock bits are a superset of the reset
>> bits (the reset bits act on cells but some cells have >1 clock).
>
> Ok, in that case, I would strongly recommend subtracting that 256
> offset keeping the numbers the same, to remove the function-type
> macros.
>
>> >> However there are a couple of clocks without gating just before the
>> >> clock reaches the peripheral:
>> >>
>> >> 1. A hard coded /8. I think this will have to be given a synthetic
>> >>      number.
>> >
>> > If this is just a divider, why not use a separate DT node for that,
>> > like this:
>> >
>> >          clock {
>> >                  compatible = "fixed-factor-clock";
>> >                  clocks = <&parentclk>;
>> >                  #clock-cells = <0>;
>> >                  clock-div = <8>;
>> >                  clock-mult = <1>;
>> >          };
>> >
>> > No need to assign a number for this.
>>
>> I'd wondered about doing that.
>>
>> It will certainly work but it seemed a bit odd to me to have one (really
>> tiny) part of the RCC cell included seperately in the platform
>> description whilst all the complicated bits end up aggregated into the
>> RCC cell.
>>
>> Is there much prior art that uses this type of trick to avoid having
>> magic numbers into the bindings?
>
> Are you sure that divider is actually part of the RCC?
>
>> >> 2. Ungated dividers. For these I am using the bit offset of the LSB of
>> >>      the mux field.
>> >
>> > Do these ones also come with resets?
>>
>> No. They mostly run to the core and its intimate peripherals (i.e. only
>> reset line comes from WDT).
>
> Ok.
>
>> >> So I think there is only one value that is completely unrelated to the
>> >> hardware and will use a magic constant instead.
>> >>
>> >> I had planned to macros similar to the STM32F4_AxB_RESET() family of
>> >> macros in both clk driver and DT in order to reuse the bit layouts from
>> >> dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h .
>> >>
>> >> Normal case would have looked like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_CLK(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> Without the macros it looks like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc 257>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc 513>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> However we could perhaps be more literate even if we don't use the macros?
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer@40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc ((0x20*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc ((0x40*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >
>> > How about #address-cells = <2>, so you can do
>> >
>> >             resets = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >             clocks = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >
>> > with the first cell being an index for the block and the second cell the
>> > bit number within that block.
>>
>> That would suit me very well (although is the 0x20/0x40 not the 8 that
>> we would need in the middle column).
>
> We don't normally use register offsets in DT. The number 8 here instead
> would indicate block 8, where each block is four bytes wide. Using the
> same index here for reset and clock would also help readability.

My view is that it makes the bindings usage very complex.
Also, it implies we have a specific compatible for stm32f429, whereas
we didn't need with my earlier proposals.
Indeed, the reset driver will need to know the offset of every reset
registers, because:
  1. The AHB registers start at RCC offset 0x10 (up to 0x18)
  2. The APB registers start at RCC offset 0x20 (up to 0x24).
We have a gap between AHB and APB registers, so how do we map the
index for the block you propose?
Should the gap be considered as a block, or we should skip it?

I'm afraid it will not be straightforward for a reset user to
understand how to use this bindings.

Either my v7 or v8 versions would have made possible to use a single
compatible for STM32 series.
If we stick with one of these, we could even think to have a "generic"
reset driver, as it could be compatible with sunxi driver bindings.

What is your view?

Kind regards,
Maxime

>
>         Arnd

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com (Maxime Coquelin)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 18:29:05 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU
In-Reply-To: <11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
References: <1431158038-3813-1-git-send-email-mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
 <3125409.QXbEmPolyh@wuerfel> <55536BC2.30603@linaro.org>
 <11310179.epfRucfQKB@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <CALszF6DHazhN6+hGShyrmqtMrPod0hdb8mHAwK-GWfRxXzy7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

2015-05-13 17:28 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2015 16:20:34 Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> For the all reset bits:
>>
>>    clock idx = reset idx + 256
>>
>> The opposite is not true; the clock bits are a superset of the reset
>> bits (the reset bits act on cells but some cells have >1 clock).
>
> Ok, in that case, I would strongly recommend subtracting that 256
> offset keeping the numbers the same, to remove the function-type
> macros.
>
>> >> However there are a couple of clocks without gating just before the
>> >> clock reaches the peripheral:
>> >>
>> >> 1. A hard coded /8. I think this will have to be given a synthetic
>> >>      number.
>> >
>> > If this is just a divider, why not use a separate DT node for that,
>> > like this:
>> >
>> >          clock {
>> >                  compatible = "fixed-factor-clock";
>> >                  clocks = <&parentclk>;
>> >                  #clock-cells = <0>;
>> >                  clock-div = <8>;
>> >                  clock-mult = <1>;
>> >          };
>> >
>> > No need to assign a number for this.
>>
>> I'd wondered about doing that.
>>
>> It will certainly work but it seemed a bit odd to me to have one (really
>> tiny) part of the RCC cell included seperately in the platform
>> description whilst all the complicated bits end up aggregated into the
>> RCC cell.
>>
>> Is there much prior art that uses this type of trick to avoid having
>> magic numbers into the bindings?
>
> Are you sure that divider is actually part of the RCC?
>
>> >> 2. Ungated dividers. For these I am using the bit offset of the LSB of
>> >>      the mux field.
>> >
>> > Do these ones also come with resets?
>>
>> No. They mostly run to the core and its intimate peripherals (i.e. only
>> reset line comes from WDT).
>
> Ok.
>
>> >> So I think there is only one value that is completely unrelated to the
>> >> hardware and will use a magic constant instead.
>> >>
>> >> I had planned to macros similar to the STM32F4_AxB_RESET() family of
>> >> macros in both clk driver and DT in order to reuse the bit layouts from
>> >> dt-bindings/mfd/stm32f4-rcc.h .
>> >>
>> >> Normal case would have looked like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer at 40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_RESET(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc STM32F4_APB1_CLK(TIM3)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> Without the macros it looks like this:
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer at 40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc 257>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc 513>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >>
>> >> However we could perhaps be more literate even if we don't use the macros?
>> >>
>> >>                  timer3: timer at 40000000 {
>> >>                          compatible = "st,stm32-timer";
>> >>                          reg = <0x40000000 0x400>;
>> >>                          interrupts = <28>;
>> >>                          resets = <&rcc ((0x20*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          clocks = <&rcc ((0x40*8) + 1)>;
>> >>                          status = "disabled";
>> >>                  };
>> >
>> > How about #address-cells = <2>, so you can do
>> >
>> >             resets = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >             clocks = <&rcc 8 1>;
>> >
>> > with the first cell being an index for the block and the second cell the
>> > bit number within that block.
>>
>> That would suit me very well (although is the 0x20/0x40 not the 8 that
>> we would need in the middle column).
>
> We don't normally use register offsets in DT. The number 8 here instead
> would indicate block 8, where each block is four bytes wide. Using the
> same index here for reset and clock would also help readability.

My view is that it makes the bindings usage very complex.
Also, it implies we have a specific compatible for stm32f429, whereas
we didn't need with my earlier proposals.
Indeed, the reset driver will need to know the offset of every reset
registers, because:
  1. The AHB registers start at RCC offset 0x10 (up to 0x18)
  2. The APB registers start at RCC offset 0x20 (up to 0x24).
We have a gap between AHB and APB registers, so how do we map the
index for the block you propose?
Should the gap be considered as a block, or we should skip it?

I'm afraid it will not be straightforward for a reset user to
understand how to use this bindings.

Either my v7 or v8 versions would have made possible to use a single
compatible for STM32 series.
If we stick with one of these, we could even think to have a "generic"
reset driver, as it could be compatible with sunxi driver bindings.

What is your view?

Kind regards,
Maxime

>
>         Arnd