Re: [PATCH v1 09/14] dt-bindings: nvmem: add YAML schema for the sl28 vpd layout

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2022-08-31 11:24, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 31/08/2022 11:17, Michael Walle wrote:

>> First thing, this binding isn't like the usual ones, so it might be
>> totally wrong.
>> 
>> What I'd like to achieve here is the following:
>> 
>> We have the nvmem-consumer dt binding where you can reference a
>> nvmem cell in a consumer node. Example:
>>    nvmem-cells = <&base_mac_address 5>;
>>    nvmem-cell-names = "mac-address";
>> 
>> On the other end of the link we have the nvmem-provider. The dt
>> bindings works well if that one has individual cell nodes, like
>> it is described in the nvmem.yaml binding. I.e. you can give the
>> cell a label and make a reference to it in the consumer just like
>> in the example above.
> 
> You can also achieve it with phandle argument to the nvmwm controller,
> right? Just like most of providers are doing (clocks, resets). Having
> fake (empty) nodes just for that seems like overkill.

You mean like
  nvmem-cells = <&nvmem_device SERIAL_NUMBER>;

I'm not sure about the implications for now, because one is
referencing the device and not individal cells. Putting that
aside for now, there seems to be a problem with the index for
the base mac address: You will have different number of arguments
for the phandle. That doesn't work, right?

nvmem-cells = <&nvmem_device SERIAL_NUMBER>;
nvmem-cells = <&nvmem_device BASE_MAC_ADDRESS 1>;

>> Now comes the catch: what if there is no actual description of the
>> cell in the device tree, but is is generated during runtime. How
>> can I get a label to it.
> 
> Same as clocks, resets, power-domains and everyone else.

See
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/084973e944bec21804f8afb0515b25434438699a

And I guess this discussion is relevant here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20220124160300.25131-1-zajec5@gmail.com/

>> Therefore, in this case, there is just
>> an empty node and the driver will associate it with the cell
>> created during runtime (see patch 10). It is not expected, that
>> is has any properties.
> 
> It cannot be even referenced as it does not have #cells property...

You mean "#nvmem-cell-cells"? See patch #2. None of the nvmem
cells had such a property for now.

>>>> +
>>>> +  base-mac-address:
>>> 
>>> Fields should be rather described here, not in top-level description.
>>> 
>>>> +    type: object
>>> 
>>> On this level:
>>>     additionalProperties: false
>>> 
>>>> +
>>>> +    properties:
>>>> +      "#nvmem-cell-cells":
>>>> +        const: 1
>>>> +
>>> 
>>> I also wonder why you do not have unit addresses. What if you want to
>>> have two base MAC addresses?
>> 
>> That would describe an offset within the nvmem device. But the offset
>> might not be constant, depending on the content. My understanding
>> so far was that in that case, you use the "-N" suffix.
>> 
>> base-mac-address-1
>> base-mac-address-2
>> 
>> (or maybe completely different names).
> 
> You do not allow "base-mac-address-1". Your binding explicitly accepts
> only "base-mac-address".

Because the binding matches the driver, which matches the driver
which matches the VPD data and there is only one base mac address.
Thus, no need for different ones.

-michael

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel