Message-ID: <cebd8f1d-90ab-87e7-9a34-f5c760688ce5@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:45:20 +0800
From:   "Chuan Hua, Lei" <chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     eswara.kota@...ux.intel.com, cheol.yong.kim@...el.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        p.zabel@...gutronix.de, qi-ming.wu@...el.com, robh@...nel.org,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] reset: Reset controller driver for Intel LGM SoC

Hi Martin,


On 9/2/2019 5:38 AM, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:02 AM Chuan Hua, Lei
> <chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> On 8/30/2019 5:40 AM, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 4:51 AM Chuan Hua, Lei
>>> <chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm not surprised that we got some of the IP block layout for the
>>>>> VRX200 RCU "wrong" - all "documentation" we have is the old Lantiq UGW
>>>>> (BSP).
>>>>> with proper documentation (as in a "public datasheet for the SoC") it
>>>>> would be easy to spot these mistakes (at least I assume that the
>>>>> quality of the Infineon / Lantiq datasheets is excellent).
>>>>>
>>>>> back to reset-intel-syscon:
>>>>> assigning only one job to the RCU hardware is a good idea (in my opinion).
>>>>> that brings up a question: why do we need the "syscon" compatible for
>>>>> the RCU node?
>>>>> this is typically used when registers are accessed by another IP block
>>>>> and the other driver has to access these registers as well. does this
>>>>> mean that there's more hidden in the RCU registers?
>>>> As I mentioned, some other misc registers are put into RCU even they
>>>> don't belong to reset functions.
>>> OK, just be aware that there are also rules for syscon compatible
>>> drivers, see for example: [0]
>>> if Rob (dt-bindings maintainer) is happy with the documentation in
>>> patch 1 then I'm fine with it as well.
>>> for my own education I would appreciate if you could describe these
>>> "other misc registers" with a few sentences (I assume that this can
>>> also help Rob)
>> For LGM, RCU is clean. There would be no MISC register after software's
>> feedback. These misc registers will be moved to chiptop/misc
>> groups(implemented by syscon). For legacy SoC, we do have a lot MISC
>> registers for different SoCs.
> OK, I think I understand now: chiptop != RCU
> so RCU really only has one purpose: handling resets
> while chiptop manages all the random bits
>
> does this means we don't need RCU to match "syscon"?

If we don't support legacy SoC with the same driver, we don't need 
syscon, just regmap. Regmap is a must for us since we will use regmap 
proxy to implement secure rest via secure processor.

>
>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Code not optimized and intel internal review not assessed.
>>>>>>>>> insights from you (like the issue with the reset callback) are very
>>>>>>>>> valuable - this shows that we should focus on having one driver.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Based on the above findings, I would suggest reset-lantiq.c to move to
>>>>>>>>>> reset-intel-syscon.c
>>>>>>>>> my concern with having two separate drivers is that it will be hard to
>>>>>>>>> migrate from reset-lantiq to the "optimized" reset-intel-syscon
>>>>>>>>> driver.
>>>>>>>>> I don't have access to the datasheets for the any Lantiq/Intel SoC
>>>>>>>>> (VRX200 and even older).
>>>>>>>>> so debugging issues after switching from one driver to another is
>>>>>>>>> tedious because I cannot tell which part of the driver is causing a
>>>>>>>>> problem (it's either "all code from driver A" vs "all code from driver
>>>>>>>>> B", meaning it's hard to narrow it down).
>>>>>>>>> with separate commits/patches that are improving the reset-lantiq
>>>>>>>>> driver I can do git bisect to find the cause of a problem on the older
>>>>>>>>> SoCs (VRX200 for example)
>>>>>>>> Our internal version supports XRX350/XRX500/PRX300(MIPS based) and
>>>>>>>> latest Lighting Mountain(X86 based). Migration to reset-intel-syscon.c
>>>>>>>> should be straight forward.
>>>>>>> what about the _reset callback on the XRX350/XRX500/PRX300 SoCs - do
>>>>>>> they only use level resets (_assert and _deassert) or are some reset
>>>>>>> lines using reset pulses (_reset)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when we wanted to switch from reset-lantiq.c to reset-intel-syscon.c
>>>>>>> we still had to add support for the _reset callback as this is missing
>>>>>>> in reset-intel-syscon.c currently
>>>>>> Yes. We have reset pulse(assert, then check the reset status).
>>>>> only now I realized that the reset-intel-syscon driver does not seem
>>>>> to use the status registers (instead it's looking at the reset
>>>>> registers when checking the status).
>>>>> what happened to the status registers - do they still exist in newer
>>>>> SoCs (like LGM)? why are they not used?
>>>> Reset status check is there. regmap_read_poll_timeout to check status
>>>> big. Status register offset <4) from request register. For legacy, there
>>>> is one exception, we can add soc specific data to handle it.
>>> I see, thank you for the explanation
>>> this won't work on VRX200 for example because the status register is
>>> not always at (reset register - 0x4)
>> As I mentioned, VRX200 and all legacy SoCs (MIPS based) can be solved
>> with one soc data in the compatible array.
>>
>> For example(not same as upstream, but idea is similar)
>>
>> static u32 intel_stat_reg_off(struct intel_reset_data *data, u32 req_off)
>> {
>>       if (data->soc_data->legacy && req_off == RCU_RST_REQ)
>>           return RCU_RST_STAT;
>>       else
>>           return req_off + 0x4;
>> }
>>
>>>>> on VRX200 for example there seem to be some cases where the bits in
>>>>> the reset and status registers are different (for example: the first
>>>>> GPHY seems to use reset bit 31 but status bit 30)
>>>>> this is currently not supported in reset-intel-syscon
>>>> This is most tricky and ugly part for VRX200/Danube. Do you have any
>>>> idea to handle this nicely?
>>> with reset-lantiq we have the following register information:
>>> a) reset offset: first reg property
>>> b) status offset: second reg property
>>> c) reset bit: first #reset-cell
>>> d) status bit: second #reset-cell
>>>
>>> reset-intel-syscon derives half of this information from the two #reset-cells:
>>> a) reset offset: first #reset-cell
>>> b) status offset: reset offset - 0x4
>>> c) reset bit: second #reset-cell
>>> d) status bit: same as reset bit
>>>
>>> I cannot make any suggestion (yet) how to handle VRX200 and LGM in one
>>> driver because I don't know enough about LGM (yet).
>>> on VRX200 my understanding is that we have 64 reset bits (2x 32bit
>>> registers) and 64 status bits (also 2x 32bit registers). each reset
>>> bit has a corresponding status bit but the numbering may be different
>>> it's not clear to me how many resets LGM supports and how they are
>>> organized. for example: I think it makes a difference if "there are 64
>>> registers with each one reset bit" versus "there are two registers
>>> with 32 bits each"
>>> please share some details how it's organized internally, then I can
>>> try to come up with a suggestion.
>> LGM reset organization is more clean compared with legacy SoCs. We have
>> 8 x 32bit reset and status registers(more modules need to be reset,
>> overall ideas are similar without big change). Their request and status
>> bit is at the same register bit position.  Hope this will help you.
> have you already discussed using only one reset cell?
> if there's only one big reset controller in RCU then why not let the
> reset controller driver do it's job of translating a reset line? also
> this represents the hardware best (dt-bindings should describe the
> hardware, drivers then translate that into the various subsystems
> offered by the kernel).
>
> we have to translate it into:
> - status register and bit
> - reset register and bit
>
> for LGM the implementation seems to be the easiest because the reset
> line can be mapped easily to the registers and bit offsets (for
> example like reset-meson.c does it, which also supports 256 reset
> lines together with for example
> include/dt-bindings/reset/amlogic,meson-g12a-reset.h. the latter is
> nice to have but optional)
When we implement this driver, we checked other drivers(hisilicon/*, 
reset-berlin.c and etc). After evaluation, we think register offset and 
register bit are easier for users to understand and use if they follow 
the hardware spec.
> we can then implement special translation logic (in other words: a
> separate of_xlate callback) for VRX200 which then has to do more
> "magic" (like you have shown in your example code above: "if the reset
> line belongs to the second set of 32 reset lines then use reset offset
> X and status offset Y" - or even use a translation table as
> reset-imx7.c does)
>
> the current binding is a mix of specifying reset register and bit in
> .dts but calculating the status register.
> I missed the calculation of the status register until you pointed it out earlier
But we still don't have a good solution for VRX200 status bit issues. 
Before we solve this issue, it is very difficult to use one driver for 
all SoCs.
>
> Martin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists