[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b0f8312-2caa-b9f3-edf3-1b720532f559@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:12:18 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>,
Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: cache: r9a07g043f-l2-cache: Add DT
binding documentation for L2 cache controller
On 25/11/2022 11:34, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
>>> +/* Device, Non-bufferable */
>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_DEV_NON_BUF (0 << 2)
>>> +/* Device, bufferable */
>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_DEV_BUF (1 << 2)
>>> +/* Memory, Non-cacheable, Non-bufferable */
>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_MEM_NON_CACHE_NON_BUF (2 << 2)
>>> +/* Memory, Non-cacheable, Bufferable */
>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_MEM_NON_CACHE_BUF (3 << 2)
>>
>> What are all these? They don't look like flags, because 3 = 1 | 2...
>> they don't look like constants, because we do not use shifts in
>> constants. Are these some register values? I also do not see the header
>> being used in the code, so why having a bindings header if it is not
>> used (DTS is not usage...)?
>>
> These are register bit values for the MTYP[5:2] field. The DTS example
> in the binding doc (above) uses these macros. I haven't included the
> DTS/I patches with this patchset yet do think I should?
Then why storing it as bindings? Bindings headers describe the interface
implemented by drivers and used by DTS, but this is not implemented by
drivers.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists