Re: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dt-bindings: exynos-bus: Add documentation for interconnect properties

[Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org>]

Hi Sylwester,

On 9/9/20 17:47, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Georgi,
> 
> On 09.09.2020 11:07, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> On 8/28/20 17:49, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>> On 30.07.2020 14:28, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>> On 09.07.2020 23:04, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 06:37:19PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>>> Add documentation for new optional properties in the exynos bus nodes:
>>>>>> samsung,interconnect-parent, #interconnect-cells, bus-width.
>>>>>> These properties allow to specify the SoC interconnect structure which
>>>>>> then allows the interconnect consumer devices to request specific
>>>>>> bandwidth requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Artur Świgoń <a.swigon@samsung.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
>>>
>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
> 
>>>>>> +Optional properties for interconnect functionality (QoS frequency constraints):
>>>>>> +- samsung,interconnect-parent: phandle to the parent interconnect node; for
>>>>>> +  passive devices should point to same node as the exynos,parent-bus property.
>>>
>>>>> Adding vendor specific properties for a common binding defeats the 
>>>>> point.
>>>
>>> Actually we could do without any new property if we used existing interconnect
>>> consumers binding to specify linking between the provider nodes. I think those
>>> exynos-bus nodes could well be considered both the interconnect providers 
>>> and consumers. The example would then be something along the lines 
>>> (yes, I know the bus node naming needs to be fixed):
>>>
>>> 	soc {
>>> 		bus_dmc: bus_dmc {
>>> 			compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
>>> 			/* ... */
>>> 			samsung,data-clock-ratio = <4>;
>>> 			#interconnect-cells = <0>;
>>> 		};
>>>
>>> 		bus_leftbus: bus_leftbus {
>>> 			compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
>>> 			/* ... */
>>> 			interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>;
>>> 			#interconnect-cells = <0>;
>>> 		};
>>>
>>> 		bus_display: bus_display {
>>> 			compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
>>> 			/* ... */
>>> 			interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_leftbus>;
>>
>> Hmm, bus_display being a consumer of itself is a bit odd? Did you mean:
>>  			interconnects = <&bus_dmc &bus_leftbus>;
> 
> Might be, but we would need to swap the phandles so <source, destination>
> order is maintained, i.e. interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>;

Ok, i see. Thanks for clarifying! Currently the "interconnects" property is
defined as a pair of initiator and target nodes. You can keep it also as
interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_dmc>, but you will need to figure out
during probe that there is another node in the middle and defer. I assume
that if a provider is also an interconnect consumer, we will link it to
whatever nodes are specified in the "interconnects" property?

> My intention here was to describe the 'bus_display -> bus_leftbus' part 
> of data path 'bus_display -> bus_leftbus -> bus_dmc', bus_display is
> really a consumer of 'bus_leftbus -> bus_dmc' path.
>
> I'm not sure if it is allowed to specify only single phandle (and 
> interconnect provider specifier) in the interconnect property, that would
> be needed for the bus_leftbus node to define bus_dmc as the interconnect 
> destination port. There seems to be such a use case in arch/arm64/boot/
> dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi.

In the general case you have to specify pairs. The "dma-mem" is a reserved
name for devices that perform DMA through another bus with separate address
translation rules.

>>> 			#interconnect-cells = <0>;
>>> 		};
>>>
>>>
>>> 		&mixer {
>>> 			compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-mixer";
>>> 			interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_dmc>;
>>> 			/* ... */
>>> 		};
>>> 	};
>>>
>>> What do you think, Georgi, Rob?
>>
>> I can't understand the above example with bus_display being it's own consumer.
>> This seems strange to me. Could you please clarify it?
> 
>> Otherwise the interconnect consumer DT bindings are already well established
>> and i don't see anything preventing a node to be both consumer and provider.
>> So this should be okay in general.
> 
> Thanks, below is an updated example according to your suggestions. 
> Does it look better now?
> 
> ---------------------------8<------------------------------
> soc {
> 	bus_dmc: bus_dmc {
> 		compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
> 		/* ... */
> 		samsung,data-clock-ratio = <4>;
> 		#interconnect-cells = <0>;
> 	};
> 
> 	bus_leftbus: bus_leftbus {
> 		compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
> 		/* ... */
> 		interconnects = <&bus_dmc>;
> 		#interconnect-cells = <0>;
> 	};
> 
> 	bus_display: bus_display {
> 		compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
> 		/* ... */
> 		interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>;
> 		#interconnect-cells = <0>;
> 	};
> 
> 	&mixer {
> 		compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-mixer";
> 		interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_dmc>;
> 		/* ... */
> 	};
> };
> ---------------------------8<------------------------------

It's difficult to have a common way to describe all the different kinds of
topologies in DT, as some SoCs are very complex, having multi-tiered topologies
with hundreds of nodes, with multiple links between them etc. Currently, the
idea is to have the topology as platform data, but i guess that you want to
avoid this. I hope that we will be able to describe simpler topologies in DT in
the future, but we don't have such support in the framework yet.

So maybe we could try your proposal and see how it will work for exynos.

Thanks,
Georgi