[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc05fb3483cef4869ae390096bb95985@walle.cc>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 15:30:37 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: nvmem: add transformation support
Hi Rob,
Am 2021-11-30 20:19, schrieb Rob Herring:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 02:44:25PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
..
>> Introduce a transformation property. This is intended to be just an
>> enumeration of operations. If there will be a new operation, support
>> for
>> it has to be added to the nvmem core.
>>
>> A transformation might have multiple output values, like in the base
>> mac
>> address case. It reads the mac address from the nvmem storage and
>> generates multiple individual addresses, i.e. on our board we reserve
>> 8
>> consecutive addresses. These addresses then can be assigned to
>> different
>> network interfaces. To make it possible to reference different values
>> we
>> need to introduce an argument to the phandle. This additional argument
>> is then an index into a list of values.
>
> I still don't think trying to encode transformations of data into the
> DT
> is right approach.
>
>>
>> Example:
>> mac_addresses: base-mac-address@10 {
>> #nvmem-cell-cells = <1>;
>> reg = <10 6>;
>> transformation = <NVMEM_T_ETH_OFFSET 0 1 7>;
>> }
>>
>> ð0 {
>> nvmem-cells = <&mac_addresses 0>;
>> nvmem-cell-names = "mac-address";
>> };
>>
>> ð1 {
>> nvmem-cells = <&mac_addresses 2>;
>> nvmem-cell-names = "mac-address";
>> };
>>
>> The NVMEM_T_ETH_OFFSET transformation takes N additional (dt) cells
>> and
>> will generate N values. In this example BASE_MAC+0, BASE_MAC+1,
>> BASE_MAC+7.
>> An nvmem consumer can then reference the nvmem cell with an index. So
>> eth0
>> will get BASE_MAC+0 and eth1 will get BASE_MAC+7.
>>
>> This should be sufficient flexible for many different transformations
>> without having to touch the bindings except for adding documentation
>> and
>> checks for new transformations.
>
> The content and number of cells is supposed to be opaque to the client
> and interpreted by the provider. That's sort of true here, but not
> really because the interpretation is tied to 'transformation'. So I'm
> okay with adding cells, but not fixing the interpretation of them. A
> compatible should determine how the cells are interpreted.
What do you mean by "adding cells"? The additional argument to the
phandle?
So an example would be:
ethernet_base_mac: base-mac-address@100 {
#nvmem-cell-cells = <1>;
compatible = "nvmem-ethernet-address";
reg = <0x100 0x6>;
};
ð0 {
nvmem-cells = <ðernet_base_mac 0>;
nvmem-cell-names = "mac-address";
};
ð1 {
nvmem-cells = <ðernet_base_mac 7>;
nvmem-cell-names = "mac-address";
};
Right? Any suggestions for a better compatible name?
>> I do have one question regarding "#nvmem-cell-cells" (aside from the
>> awkward naming): is it allowed to have that property optional if there
>> is no additional argument to the phandle?
>
> We don't have any choice if we add "#nvmem-cell-cells". There's already
> cases without it.
Yes, that was the reason for the question. But I wasn't sure, whether
that is allowed.
-michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists