Date:	Thu, 05 Dec 2013 22:41:01 -0800
From:	Marc C <marc.ceeeee@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ARM: brcmstb: add infrastructure for ARM-based
 Broadcom STB SoCs

Hello Arnd,

> Do you have a strong reason to have your own defconfig file? We
> currently try to consolidate as much as possible into
> multi_v7_defconfig, so please see if you can extend that instead to
> do what you need.

There's no reason why we can't use the multi-platform defconfig. I'll
make sure our platform uses it in the next revision.

> This seems like stuff that should go into the device drivers for the
> respective hardware blocks, not into platform code.

Understood. I'm not sure if you recall this [1] conversation, but short
of having a big array of registers offsets per chip ID (which will
probably grow to 10 or more), leveraging the DT to let the bootloader
tell the kernel these randomly-located registers are proved to be very
lightweight.

Seems like there's one thing I could possibly factor out into a separate
driver... the registers that assert a chip reset (sw-master-reset-reg).
Maybe I could register a reset-controller driver specifically for this
purpose?

> We try hard to avoid having register available this early and outside
> of device drivers. Can you try to make at least some (if not all) of
> these more regular, and provide specific comments in the code why this
> is not possible for the others?

Just to be sure, you're asking to reduce our dependence on touching
these machine-specific registers?

I will incorporate all of your suggestions into the next revision of the
patch set. Thank you for the review!

Regards,
Marc

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg288567.html

On 12/3/2013 7:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 November 2013, Marc Carino wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
>> index 5765abf..266c699 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug
>> @@ -94,6 +94,17 @@ choice
>>  		depends on ARCH_BCM2835
>>  		select DEBUG_UART_PL01X
>>  
>> +	config DEBUG_BRCMSTB_UART
>> +		bool "Use BRCMSTB UART for low-level debug"
>> +		depends on ARCH_BRCMSTB
>> +		select DEBUG_UART_8250
>> +		help
>> +		  Say Y here if you want the debug print routines to direct
>> +		  their output to the first serial port on these devices.
>> +
>> +		  If you have a Broadcom STB chip and would like early print
>> +		  messages to appear over the UART, select this option.
>> +
>>  	config DEBUG_CLPS711X_UART1
>>  		bool "Kernel low-level debugging messages via UART1"
>>  		depends on ARCH_CLPS711X
> 
> Can you split out the debug UART changes into a separate patch?
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/brcmstb_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/brcmstb_defconfig
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..1741d92
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/brcmstb_defconfig
>> @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
>> +CONFIG_CROSS_COMPILE="arm-linux-"
>> +CONFIG_KERNEL_LZO=y
>> +CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y
>> +CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE=y
>> +CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=14
>> +CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED=y
>> +CONFIG_RELAY=y
>> +CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD=y
> 
> Do you have a strong reason to have your own defconfig file? We currently
> try to consolidate as much as possible into multi_v7_defconfig, so please
> see if you can extend that instead to do what you need.
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>> index 9fe6d88..9179259 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>> @@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ config ARCH_BCM_MOBILE
>>  	  BCM11130, BCM11140, BCM11351, BCM28145 and
>>  	  BCM28155 variants.
>>  
>> +config ARCH_BRCMSTB
>> +	bool "Broadcom BCM7XXX based boards" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
>> +	depends on MMU
>> +	select ARM_ARCH_TIMER
>> +	select ARM_GIC
>> +	select BRCMSTB
>> +	select MIGHT_HAVE_PCI
>> +	select HAVE_SMP
>> +	select USE_OF
>> +	select CPU_V7
>> +	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> 
> Some of these are already implied by ARCH_MULTI_V7 and can be dropped
> from this list.
> 
>> +struct platform_regs brcm_plat_regs;
>> +
>> +/***********************************************************************
>> + * STB CPU (main application processor)
>> + ***********************************************************************/
>> +
>> +static struct map_desc brcmstb_io_map[] __initdata = {
>> +	{
>> +	.virtual = (unsigned long)BRCMSTB_PERIPH_VIRT,
>> +	.pfn     = __phys_to_pfn(BRCMSTB_PERIPH_PHYS),
>> +	.length  = BRCMSTB_PERIPH_LENGTH,
>> +	.type    = MT_DEVICE,
>> +	},
>> +};
> 
> Why do you need a static I/O mapping? You should not rely on hardcoded
> virtual or physical addresses in general.
> 
>> +static struct node_reg sun_top_ctrl_regs[] __initdata = {
>> +	{"reset-source-enable-reg", &brcm_plat_regs.reset_source_enable_reg},
>> +	{"sw-master-reset-reg", &brcm_plat_regs.sw_master_reset_reg},
>> +	{NULL, NULL}
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct node_reg cpu_biu_ctrl_regs[] __initdata = {
>> +	{"cpu-reset-config-reg", &brcm_plat_regs.cpu_reset_config_reg},
>> +	{"cpu0-pwr-zone-ctrl-reg", &brcm_plat_regs.cpu0_pwr_zone_ctrl_reg},
>> +	{NULL, NULL}
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct node_reg hif_continuation_regs[] __initdata = {
>> +	{"stb-boot-hi-addr0-reg", &brcm_plat_regs.hif_continuation_regs_base},
>> +	{NULL, NULL}
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct node_reg_block top_reg_blocks[] __initdata = {
>> +	{"brcm,brcmstb-sun-top-ctrl", sun_top_ctrl_regs},
>> +	{"brcm,brcmstb-cpu-biu-ctrl", cpu_biu_ctrl_regs},
>> +	{"brcm,brcmstb-hif-continuation", hif_continuation_regs},
>> +	{NULL, NULL}
>> +};
> 
> This seems like stuff that should go into the device drivers for the
> respective hardware blocks, not into platform code.
> 
>> +	addr = ioremap(BPHYSADDR(BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN), sizeof(u32));
>> +	writel_relaxed(BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uarta_irqen_MASK
>> +		| BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uartb_irqen_MASK
>> +		| BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uartc_irqen_MASK, addr);
>> +	iounmap(addr);
> 
> What does this part do? Isn't that something that should have been set
> up by the boot loader?
> 
>> +	block = top_reg_blocks;
>> +	while (block->compatible) {
>> +		struct device_node *np;
>> +		struct node_reg *reg;
>> +
>> +		np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, block->compatible);
>> +		if (!np)
>> +			panic("brcmstb: DT missing \"%s\" node\n",
>> +				block->compatible);
>> +
>> +		addr = of_iomap(np, 0);
>> +		if (!addr)
>> +			panic("brcmstb: iomap failure\n");
>> +
>> +		reg = block->regs;
>> +		while (reg->prop) {
>> +			u32 val;
>> +
>> +			if (!of_property_read_u32(np, reg->prop, &val))
>> +				*(reg->addr) = addr + val;
>> +			else
>> +				panic("brcmstb: node \"%s\" missing prop \"%s\"\n",
>> +					block->compatible, reg->prop);
>> +
>> +			reg++;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		of_node_put(np);
>> +
>> +		block++;
>> +	}
>> +}
> 
> We try hard to avoid having register available this early and outside
> of device drivers. Can you try to make at least some (if not all) of
> these more regular, and provide specific comments in the code why this
> is not possible for the others?
> 
>> +static void __init brcmstb_init(void)
>> +{
>> +	of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
>> +}
> 
> This is the default function an can be omitted.
> 
>> +#define BRCMSTB_PERIPH_VIRT				0xfc000000
>> +#define BRCMSTB_PERIPH_PHYS				0xf0000000
>> +#define BRCMSTB_PERIPH_LENGTH				0x02000000
>> +
>> +#define BVIRTADDR(x)	(BRCMSTB_PERIPH_VIRT + ((x) & 0x0fffffff))
>> +#define BPHYSADDR(x)	((x) + BRCMSTB_PERIPH_PHYS)
>> +
>> +#define BCHP_UARTA_REG_START				0x00406b00
>> +
>> +#define BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN					0x00406780
>> +#define BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uarta_irqen_MASK		0x00010000
>> +#define BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uartb_irqen_MASK		0x00020000
>> +#define BCHP_IRQ0_IRQEN_uartc_irqen_MASK		0x00040000
> 
> These should probably all be private to the files that use them
> 
>> +
>> +ENTRY(brcmstb_secondary_startup)
>> +        mov     r0, #0xd3
>> +        msr     cpsr_fsxc, r0
> 
> You should have comments here about why this is necessary.
> 
>> +#define ZONE_PWR_DN_REQ_MASK		0x00000200
>> +#define ZONE_PWR_UP_REQ_MASK		0x00000400
>> +#define ZONE_BLK_RST_ASSERT_MASK	0x00001000
>> +#define ZONE_PWR_OFF_STATE_MASK		0x02000000
>> +#define ZONE_PWR_ON_STATE_MASK		0x04000000
>> +#define ZONE_RESET_STATE_MASK		0x80000000
>> +
>> +static void __iomem *pwr_zone_ctrl_get_base(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	void __iomem *base = brcm_plat_regs.cpu0_pwr_zone_ctrl_reg;
>> +	base += (cpu * 4);
>> +	return base;
>> +}
> 
> It looks like you are accessing a register area that is providing power
> domains for not just the CPUs but other parts of the system as well,
> which should be a proper device driver, e.g. pm_domain or regulator
> depending on what the hardware actually does, and then you plug
> the SMP code into that. Do you think that would work here?
> 
> In the long run, I would like to see the platform SMP code get merged with
> the cpuidle device drivers and moved to drivers/cpuidle, but we're not
> quite at the point where this can be done.
> 
>> +	/* Magic delay from misc_bpcm_arm.c */
>> +	busy_wait(10000);
> 
> I think you should use udelay() here rather than creating your own, but
> I may be missing the specific requirements. Of course it would be better
> not to need it at all.
> 
> 	Arnd
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists