[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8vCUR15WFKiyZ=AgsdKovrnCngnQ_dBTx6PkDYde2=p+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 18:18:13 +0000
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
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
Hi Krzysztof,
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:12 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I got your point. I'll make use of the header in the driver for the
next version and fix your previously pointed comments.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists