Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: add binding for Apple Mac System Management Controller

From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk, linus.walleij@linaro.org, robh@kernel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, arnd@arndb.de, lee@kernel.org,
	alyssa@rosenzweig.io, asahi@lists.linux.dev, brgl@bgdev.pl,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	sven@svenpeter.dev, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: add binding for Apple Mac System Management Controller
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 16:25:49 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d3ced0ffaec45e3c@bloch.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5bef359-3abe-311c-3521-136eb5b54c4b@marcan.st> (message from Hector Martin on Tue, 6 Sep 2022 22:53:47 +0900)

> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 22:53:47 +0900
> From: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
> 
> On 06/09/2022 22.43, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > In the case of gpio-macsmc, how would we later add support for the
> > slave PMU GPIOs, given that these use keys "gpXX" rather than "gPxx"?
> > How do we tell the gpio-macsmc code to use a different set of keys?
> > Should DT describe the key "prefix" (in other words "gp" vs "gP"),
> > or should it describe it some other way. What if Apple decides to
> > instantiate another GPIO controller in a later platform with a
> > different prefix, could that be accomodated without breaking any
> > solution we come up today?
> > 
> > Maybe the solution to this would be to describe the key prefix in DT
> > as that's effectively its "reg". Or maybe we use "reg" to describe
> > it somehow (which is value of the key, which seems to have an
> > "address" like quality to it?)
> > 
> > We don't have to implement code for this now, we just need to get a
> > reasonably correct DT binding for the gpio controller.
> 
> I agree that this is something to think about (I was about to reply on
> the subject).
> 
> I can think of two ways: using `reg` for the key name, but that feels
> icky since it's ASCII and not *really* a register number/address, or
> something like this:
> 
> gpio@0 {
> 	apple,smc-key-base = "gP00";
> 	...
> }
> 
> gpio@1 {
> 	apple,smc-key-base = "gp00";
> 	...
> }

This would still require us to add a (one-cell) "reg" property and
would require adding the appropriate "#address-cells" and
"#size-cells" properties to the SMC node.

> But this ties back to the device enumeration too, since right now the DT
> does not drive that (we'd have to add the subdevice to the mfd subdevice
> list somehow anyway, if we don't switch to compatibles).
> 
> I'd love to hear Rob's opinion on this one, and also whether the
> existing Linux and OpenBSD code would currently find gpio@0 {} instead
> of gpio {} for backwards compat.

The OpenBSD driver does a lookup by name and the "@0" is part of that
name.  So that would break backwards compat.

Maybe just name the slave GPIO controller "gpio-slave"?  If we add
compatibles, the compatibles for the nodes should propbably be
different such that we can switch to do a lookup by compatible?

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