Message-ID: <ZO9GLG5tQynYyAvR@pluto>
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 14:37:48 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
        "oleksii_moisieiev@...m.com" <oleksii_moisieiev@...m.com>,
        "sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Aisheng Dong <aisheng.dong@....com>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] scmi: pinctrl: support i.MX9

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48:37PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 

Hi,

> > Subject: Re: [RFC] scmi: pinctrl: support i.MX9
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 08:43:38AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > Subject: Re: [RFC] scmi: pinctrl: support i.MX9
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 2:47 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> wrote:
> > > > > Me:
> > 
> > Hi Peng,
> > 
> > > >
> > > > >> it is merely making things more complex and also slower
> > > > > > bymaking the registers only accessible from this SCMI link.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is for safety reason, the pinctrl hardware must be handled by
> > > > > a system manager entity. So mmio direct access not allowed from
> > > > > Cortex-A side.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I understood as much. But I don't think that the firmware is
> > > > really filtering any of the access, it will just poke into any
> > > > pinctrl register as instructed anyway so what's the point. Just looks like a
> > layer of indirection.
> > >
> > > No, the firmware has a check on whether a pin is allowed to be
> > > configured by the agent that wanna to configure the pin.
> > >
> > > > But I'm not your system manager, so it's not my decision.
> > > >
> > > > > The SCMI firmware is very straightforward, there is no group or
> > > > > function.
> > > > >
> > > > > It just accepts the format as this:
> > > > > MUX_TYPE, MUX VALUE, CONF_TYPE, CONF_VAL, DAISY_TYPE, DAISY
> > ID,
> > > > > DAISY_CFG, DAISY_VALUE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Similar as linux MMIO format.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our i.MX95 platform will support two settings, one with SCMI
> > > > > firmware, one without SCMI. These two settings will share the same
> > > > > pinctrl header file.
> > > > >
> > > > > And to simplify the scmi firmware design(anyway I am not owner of
> > > > > the firmware), to make pinctrl header shared w/o scmi, we take the
> > > > > current in-upstream freescale imx binding format.
> > > >
> > > > The SCMI people will have to state their position on this.
> > > > Like what they consider conformance and what extensions are allowed.
> > > > This is more a standardization question than an implementation
> > > > question so it's not really my turf.
> > >
> > > The i.MX95 SCMI firmware uses OEM extension type. So I just follow
> > > what the firmware did and support it in linux. Anyway let's wait
> > > Sudeep's reply.
> > >
> > 
> > So my unsderstanding on this matter as of now is that:
> > 
> > 1. the current SCMI Pinctrl specification can support your usecase by using
> >    OEM Types and multiple pins/values CONFIG_GET/SET commands
> 
> Yes, based on the Oleksii patchset with my local multiple configs support.
> 

Yes, I know, I pointed out on his series that the protocol has still to
be fixed to be aligned with the latest BETA2 spec (we changed the spec
on the fly while he was already posting indeed..)

> > 
> > 2. the Kernel SCMI protocol layer (driver/firmware/arm_scmi/pinctrl.c)
> >    is equally fine and can support your usecase, AFTER Oleksii fixes it to
> >    align it to the latest v3.2-BETA2 specification changes.
> >    IOW, this means that, using the SCMI Pinctrl protocol operations
> >    exposed in scmi_protocol.h, from somewhere, you are able to properly
> >    configure multiple pins/values with your specific OEM types.
> 
> Yes.

Good.

> 
> > 
> > 3. The SCMI Pinctrl driver (by Oleksii) built on top of the pinctrl protocol
> >    operations is instead NOT suitable for your usecase since it uses the Linux
> >    Generic Pinconf and IMX does not make use of it, and instead IMX has
> >    its own bindings and related parsing logic.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > 
> > Am I right ?
> 
> You are right.
> 
> > 
> > If this is the case, I would NOT try to abuse the current SCMI Pinctrl Generic
> > driver (by Oleksii) by throwing into it a bunch of IMX specific DT parsing,
> > also because you'll end-up NOT using most of the generic SCMI Pinctrl driver
> > but just reusing a bit of the probe (customized with your own DT maps
> > parsing)
> 
> Only DT map to parse the dts and map to config array. Others are same,
> so need to export some symbols for pinctrl-scmi-imx.c driver if build imx
> scmi driver.
>

Yes, but you are basically using some exported symbol to parse the DT in
your way and then you do not use anything of the various
functions/groups stuff...you just leverage some of the probing stuff and
then issue you OEM Type configs....I mean most of the picntrl-scmi
driver would be unused anyway in this scenario.

> > 
> > Instead, given that the spec[1.] and the protocol layer[2.] are fine for your
> > use case and you indeed have already a custom way to parse your DT
> > mappings, I would say that you could just write your own custom SCMI
> > driver ( ? pinctrl-imx-scmi), distinct and much more simple than the generic
> > one, that does its own IMX DT parsing and calls just the SCMI protocol
> > operations that it needs in the way that your platform expects: so basically
> > another Pinctrl SCMI driver that does not use the generic pinconf DT
> > configuration BUT DO USE the underlying SCMI Pinctrl protocol (via its
> > exposed protocol operations...)
> 
> I am ok with this approach, but I need use the other ID, saying 0x99, not 0x19,
> because 0x19 will bind with the pinctrl-scmi.c driver, I could not reuse
> this ID for i.MX pinctrl-scmi-imx driver. Otherwise there will be issue if both
> driver are built in kernel image.
> 

Ok here I lost you.

The protocol ID 0x19 is bound to the protocol layer and identifies the
standard Pinctrl protocol: usually you use a 0x99 to define and describe
you own specific NEW vendor protocol, BUT here you are saying you are fine to
use std Pinctrl spec AND the protocol operations as exposed in pinctrl.c, so
I dont see why you should use a new vendor protocol_id to basically
expose the same operations. (and I also dont see how you can do that
without hacks in the current codebase)

You CAN have multiple SCMI drivers using the same protocol at the same
time (even more than one protocol at the same time), even though we try
to avoid it if there are no good reason to have more than one driver, there
is nothing in the spec or in the current SCMI platform or agent stacks that
inhibits such scenario (and I use iot heavily for my offline testing
indeed.)

Look at:

 - drivers/hwmon/scmi-hwmon 
 - drivers/iio/common/scmi_sensors/scmi_iio.c

and you'll see that these 2 drivers uses the same SENSOR protocol, just for
different sensor types so they do not interfere one with each other.

What happens is that the first driver using a protocol causes its
protocol_init to be called once for all.

This should work flawlessly like this, if this is not the case for some
reason, this will have to be fixed in the protocol implementation: you
are supposed to be able to grab the same protocol from different
drivers without any issue.

I agree that you have to be careful not to share the same pins across 2
different drivers using the same Pinctrl driver, but even if both driver
are compiled in, nothing is really happening until the related DT
binding are parsed, and so unless you mismatch your DT and assign same
pins to both the Generic SCMI Pinctrl and to the IMX SCMI Pinctrl I dont
see how they can interfere. You could indeed, have a set of pins managed
by your custom IMX driver and one distinct other set of pins handled by
the SCMI Generic driver by Oleksii, both magically handled by the same
SCMI Server backend :P !

BUT to be on the safe side you could anyway force a conflict in Kconfig
to mutually exclude one driver when the other is built and vice-versa.

Am I missing something ? Why would you need a new vendor ID to define a
new protocol without not really having any new protocol ?

Thanks,
Cristian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists