Date:   Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:30:06 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        david.m.ertman@...el.com, shiraz.saleem@...el.com,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] mfd: Add support for Kontron sl28cpld management
 controller

Am 2020-06-09 17:19, schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
> 
>> Am 2020-06-09 08:47, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>> >
>> > > Am 2020-06-08 20:56, schrieb Lee Jones:
>> > > > On Mon, 08 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Am 2020-06-08 12:02, schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
>> > > > > > +Cc: some Intel people WRT our internal discussion about similar
>> > > > > > problem and solutions.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Sat, 06 Jun 2020, Michael Walle wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Am 2020-06-06 13:46, schrieb Mark Brown:
>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:07:36PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > Am 2020-06-05 12:50, schrieb Mark Brown:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Right.  I'm suggesting a means to extrapolate complex shared and
>> > > > > > > sometimes intertwined batches of register sets to be consumed by
>> > > > > > > multiple (sub-)devices spanning different subsystems.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Actually scrap that.  The most common case I see is a single Regmap
>> > > > > > > covering all child-devices.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yes, because often we need a synchronization across the entire address
>> > > > > > space of the (parent) device in question.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >  It would be great if there was a way in
>> > > > > > > which we could make an assumption that the entire register address
>> > > > > > > space for a 'tagged' (MFD) device is to be shared (via Regmap) between
>> > > > > > > each of the devices described by its child-nodes.  Probably by picking
>> > > > > > > up on the 'simple-mfd' compatible string in the first instance.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Rob, is the above something you would contemplate?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Michael, do your register addresses overlap i.e. are they intermingled
>> > > > > > > with one another?  Do multiple child devices need access to the same
>> > > > > > > registers i.e. are they shared?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No they don't overlap, expect for maybe the version register, which is
>> > > > > just there once and not per function block.
>> > > >
>> > > > Then what's stopping you having each device Regmap their own space?
>> > >
>> > > Because its just one I2C device, AFAIK thats not possible, right?
>> >
>> > Not sure what (if any) the restrictions are.
>> 
>> You can only have one device per I2C address. Therefore, I need one 
>> device
>> which is enumerated by the I2C bus, which then enumerates its 
>> sub-devices.
>> I thought this was one of the use cases for MFD. (Regardless of how a
>> sub-device access its registers). So even in the "simple-regmap" case 
>> this
>> would need to be an i2c device.

Here (see below)

>> 
>> E.g.
>> 
>> &i2cbus {
>>   mfd-device@10 {
>>     compatible = "simple-regmap", "simple-mfd";
>>     reg = <10>;
>>     regmap,reg-bits = <8>;
>>     regmap,val-bits = <8>;
>>     sub-device@0 {
>>       compatible = "vendor,sub-device0";
>>       reg = <0>;
>>     };
>>     ...
>> };
>> 
>> Or if you just want the regmap:
>> 
>> &soc {
>>   regmap: regmap@...0000 {
>>     compatible = "simple-regmap";
>>     reg = <0xfff0000>;
>>     regmap,reg-bits = <16>;
>>     regmap,val-bits = <32>;
>>   };
>> 
>>   enet-which-needs-syscon-too@...0000 {
>>     vendor,ctrl-regmap = <&regmap>;
>>   };
>> };
>> 
>> Similar to the current syscon (which is MMIO only..).
> 
> We do not need a 'simple-regmap' solution for your use-case.
> 
> Since your device's registers are segregated, just split up the
> register map and allocate each sub-device with it's own slice.

I don't get it, could you make a device tree example for my
use-case? (see also above)

-michael

> 
>> > I can't think of any reasons why not, off the top of my head.
>> >
>> > Does Regmap only deal with shared accesses from multiple devices
>> > accessing a single register map, or can it also handle multiple
>> > devices communicating over a single I2C channel?
>> >
>> > One for Mark perhaps.

-- 
-michael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists