[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220519161500.GA51431@colin-ia-desktop>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 09:15:00 -0700
From: Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v8 net-next 00/16] add support for VSC7512 control over SPI
Hi Vladimir,
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 02:44:41PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 03:00:10PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 05:13:05PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > Hi Colin,
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 08, 2022 at 11:52:57AM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mdio0: mdio0@0 {
> > >
> > > This is going to be interesting. Some drivers with multiple MDIO buses
> > > create an "mdios" container with #address-cells = <1> and put the MDIO
> > > bus nodes under that. Others create an "mdio" node and an "mdio0" node
> > > (and no address for either of them).
> > >
> > > The problem with the latter approach is that
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mdio.yaml does not accept the
> > > "mdio0"/"mdio1" node name for an MDIO bus.
> >
> > I'm starting this implementation. Yep - it is interesting.
> >
> > A quick grep for "mdios" only shows one hit:
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dts
> >
> > While that has an mdios field (two, actually), each only has one mdio
> > bus, and they all seem to get parsed / registered through
> > sja1105_mdiobus_.*_register.
> >
> >
> > Is this change correct (I have a feeling it isn't):
> >
> > ocelot-chip@0 {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > mdio0: mdio@0 {
> > reg=<0>;
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > mdio1: mdio@1 {
> > reg = <1>;
> > ...
> > };
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > When I run this with MFD's (use,)of_reg, things work as I'd expect. But
> > I don't directly have the option to use an "mdios" container here
> > because MFD runs "for_each_child_of_node" doesn't dig into
> > mdios->mdio0...
>
> Sorry for the delayed response. I think you can avoid creating an
> "mdios" container node, but you need to provide some "reg" values based
> on which the MDIO controllers can be distinguished. What is your convention
> for "reg" values of MFD cells? Maybe pass the base address/size of this
> device's regmap as the "reg", even if the driver itself won't use it?
No worries. Everyone is busy.
Right now it looks like this:
}, {
.name = "ocelot-miim0",
.of_compatible = "mscc,ocelot-miim",
.of_reg = 0,
.use_of_reg = true,
.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(vsc7512_miim0_resources),
.resources = vsc7512_miim0_resources,
}, {
.name = "ocelot-miim1",
.of_compatible = "mscc,ocelot-miim",
.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(vsc7512_miim1_resources),
.of_reg = 1,
.use_of_reg = true,
.resources = vsc7512_miim1_resources,
}, {
"0" and "1" being somewhat arbitrary... although they are named as such
in the datasheet.
So you're thinking it might look more like:
.of_reg = vsc7512_miim0_resources[0].start,
and the device tree would be:
mdio0: mdio@...107009c {
reg = <0x7107009c>;
};
I could see that making sense. The main thing I don't like is applying
the address-cells to every peripheral in the switch. It seems incorrect
to have:
switch {
address-cells = <1>;
mdio0: mdio@...7009c {
reg = <0x7107009c>;
};
gpio: pinctrl {
/* No reg parameter */
};
};
That's what I currently have. To my surprise it actually doesn't throw
any warnings, which I would've expected.
I could see either 0/1 or the actual base addresses making sense.
Whichever you'd suggest.
I've got another day or two to button things up, so it looks like I
missed the boat for this release. This should be ready to go on day 1
after the window.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists