Message-ID: <ae4cfdfb9880e0a833c105fcb9e9442ef04f461b.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 09:20:08 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
 <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen	
 <lars@...afoo.de>, Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Nuno
 Sa	 <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof
 Kozlowski	 <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Olivier Moysan	 <olivier.moysan@...s.st.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 dlechner@...libre.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] dt-bindings: iio: dac: ad3552r: add io-backend
 support

On Sun, 2024-09-29 at 11:59 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:20:29 +0200
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 25/09/2024 13:55, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2024-09-25 at 09:22 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:  
> > > > On 24/09/2024 14:27, Nuno Sá wrote:  
> > > > > On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 10:02 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:  
> > > > > > On 23/09/2024 17:50, Angelo Dureghello wrote:  
> > > > > > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 22/09/24 23:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:  
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:20:00AM +0200, Angelo Dureghello
> > > > > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > From: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > There is a version AXI DAC IP block (for FPGAs) that provides
> > > > > > > > > a physical bus for AD3552R and similar chips, and acts as
> > > > > > > > > an SPI controller.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > For this case, the binding is modified to include some
> > > > > > > > > additional properties.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Angelo Dureghello <adureghello@...libre.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >   .../devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad3552r.yaml   | 42
> > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > >   1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad3552r.yaml
> > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad3552r.yaml
> > > > > > > > > index 41fe00034742..aca4a41c2633 100644
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad3552r.yaml
> > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/iio/dac/adi,ad3552r.yaml
> > > > > > > > > @@ -60,6 +60,18 @@ properties:
> > > > > > > > >       $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> > > > > > > > >       enum: [0, 1, 2, 3]
> > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > +  io-backends:
> > > > > > > > > +    description: The iio backend reference.
> > > > > > > > > +      An example backend can be found at
> > > > > > > > > +       
> > > > > > > > > https://analogdevicesinc.github.io/hdl/library/axi_ad3552r/index.html
> > > > > > > > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +  adi,synchronous-mode:
> > > > > > > > > +    description: Enable waiting for external synchronization
> > > > > > > > > signal.
> > > > > > > > > +      Some AXI IP configuration can implement a dual-IP
> > > > > > > > > layout,
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > +      wirings for streaming synchronization.
> > > > > > > > > +    type: boolean
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > >     '#address-cells':
> > > > > > > > >       const: 1
> > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > @@ -128,6 +140,7 @@ patternProperties:
> > > > > > > > >             - custom-output-range-config
> > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > >   allOf:
> > > > > > > > > +  - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
> > > > > > > > >     - if:
> > > > > > > > >         properties:
> > > > > > > > >           compatible:
> > > > > > > > > @@ -238,4 +251,33 @@ examples:
> > > > > > > > >               };
> > > > > > > > >           };
> > > > > > > > >       };
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +  - |
> > > > > > > > > +    axi_dac: spi@...70000 {
> > > > > > > > > +        compatible = "adi,axi-ad3552r";  
> > > > > > > > That is either redundant or entire example should go to the
> > > > > > > > parent
> > > > > > > > node,
> > > > > > > > if this device is fixed child of complex device (IOW,
> > > > > > > > adi,ad3552r
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be used outside of adi,axi-ad3552r).  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ad3552r can still be used by a generic "classic" spi
> > > > > > > controller (SCLK/CS/MISO) but at a slower samplerate, fpga
> > > > > > > controller only (axi-ad3552r) can reach 33MUPS.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > OK, then this is just redundant. Drop the node. Parent example
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > contain the children, though.  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > +        reg = <0x44a70000 0x1000>;
> > > > > > > > > +        dmas = <&dac_tx_dma 0>;
> > > > > > > > > +        dma-names = "tx";
> > > > > > > > > +        #io-backend-cells = <0>;
> > > > > > > > > +        clocks = <&ref_clk>;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > > > > > +        #size-cells = <0>;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +        dac@0 {
> > > > > > > > > +            compatible = "adi,ad3552r";
> > > > > > > > > +            reg = <0>;
> > > > > > > > > +            reset-gpios = <&gpio0 92 0>;  
> > > > > > > > Use standard defines for GPIO flags.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > fixed, thanks
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > +            io-backends = <&axi_dac>;  
> > > > > > > > Why do you need to point to the parent? How much coupled are
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > devices? Child pointing to parent is not usually expected,
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > that's obvious.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > "io-backends" is actually the way to refer to the backend module,
> > > > > > > (used already for i.e. ad9739a),
> > > > > > > it is needed because the backend is not only acting as spi-
> > > > > > > controller,
> > > > > > > but is also providing some APIs for synchronization and bus setup
> > > > > > > support.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But if backend is the parent, then this is redundant. You can take
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > from the child-parent relationship. Is this pointing to other
> > > > > > devices
> > > > > > (non-parent) in other ad3552r configurations?
> > > > > >  
> > > > > 
> > > > > The backend is a provider-consumer type of API. On the consumer side
> > > > > (which
> > > > > is the
> > > > > driver the child node will probe on), we need to call
> > > > > devm_iio_backend_get()
> > > > > to get
> > > > > the backend object (which obviously is the parent). For that, 'io-
> > > > > backends'
> > > > > is being  
> > > > 
> > > > You described the driver, so how does it matter? Driver can call
> > > > get_backend_from_parent(), right? Or get_backend_from_fwnode(parent)?  
> > > 
> > > Well yes, just stating what the framework (also in terms of bindings) is
> > > expecting. Of course that on the driver side we can paper around it the
> > > way we
> > > want. But my main point was that we can only paper around it if we use
> > > code that
> > > is meant not to be used.
> > > 
> > > And, FWIW, I was (trying) replying to your comment
> > > 
> > > "You can take it from the child-parent relationship"
> > > 
> > > Again, we can only do that by introducing new code or use code that's not
> > > meant
> > > to be used. The way we're supposed to reference backends is by explicitly
> > > using
> > > the proper FW property.
> > > 
> > > Put it in another way and a completely hypothetical case. If we have a spi
> > > controller which happens to export some clock and one of it's peripherals
> > > ends
> > > up using that clock, wouldn't we still use 'clocks' to reference that
> > > clock?  
> > 
> > I asked how coupled are these devices. Never got the answer and you are
> > reflecting with question. Depends. Please do not create hypothetical,
> > generic scenarios and then apply them to your one particular opposite case.
> 
> I'll throw a possible clarifying question in here.  Could we use this
> device with a multimaster SPI setup such that the control is on a conventional
> SPI controller (maybe a qspi capable one), and the data plane only goes
> through
> a specific purpose backend?  If so, then they are not tightly coupled and
> the reference makes sense.  Putting it another way, the difference between
> this case and all the prior iio-backend bindings is the control and dataplanes
> use the same pins.  Does that have to be the case at the host end?  If it
> does,
> then the reference isn't strictly needed and this becomes a bit like
> registering a single device on an spi bus or an i2c bus depending on who
> does the registering (which is down to the parent in DT).
> 

So, we currently have two drivers (with a new one being added in this series)
for the same device:

1) A SPI one tied to a typical spi controller. This is the "low speed"
implementation and does not use backends;
2) The new platform device that is connected like this to the backend.

So yes, my understanding (but Angelo should know better :)) is that they are
tightly coupled. Putting it in another way, the new platform device is very much
specific to this parent (and yeah, this is a very special usecase where control
and data planes are controlled by the IIO backend) and should not exist with it.

- Nuno Sá

Powered by blists - more mailing lists