All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jbrunet@baylibre.com (Jerome Brunet)
To: linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v1] pinctrl: meson: meson8b: fix requesting GPIOs greater than GPIOZ_3
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:07:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1519027637.2883.118.camel@baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCC=Oo0BOvSzp59xriTse3ViLd24RiGNSF0uKEwHnrXj+g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 20:44 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Martin Blumenstingl
> <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jerome,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 11:10 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > > > Hi Jerome,
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 01:27 +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > > > > > Meson8b is a cost reduced variant of the Meson8 SoC. It's package size
> > > > > > is smaller than Meson8.
> > > > > > Unfortunately there are a few key differences which cannot be seen
> > > > > > without close inspection of the code and the public S805 data-sheet:
> > > > > > - the GPIOX bank is missing the GPIOX_12, GPIOX_13, GPIOX_14 and
> > > > > >   GPIOX_15 GPIOs
> > > > > > - the GPIOY bank is missing the GPIOY_2, GPIOY_4, GPIOY_5, GPIOY_15 and
> > > > > >   GPIOY_16 GPIOs
> > > > > > - the GPIODV bank is missing all GPIOs except GPIODV_9, GPIODV_24,
> > > > > >   GPIODV_25, GPIODV_26, GPIODV_27, GPIODV_28 and GPIODV_29
> > > > > > - the GPIOZ bank is missing completely
> > > > > > - there is a new GPIO bank called "DIF"
> > > > > > - (all other pads exist on both, Meson8 and Meson8b)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The pinctrl-meson driver internally uses struct meson_bank, which
> > > > > > assumes that the GPIOs are continuous, without any holes in between.
> > > > > > This also matches with how the registers work:
> > > > > > - GPIOX_0 for example uses bit 0 for switching this pad between
> > > > > >   input/output, configuring pull-up/down, etc.
> > > > > > - GPIOX_16 uses bit 16 for switching this pad between input/output,
> > > > > >   configuring pull-up/down/, etc
> > > > > > GPIOX_16 uses bit 16 even though GPIOX12..15 don't exist. (This is
> > > > > > probably the reason why Meson8b inherits the dt-bindings - with all GPIO
> > > > > > IDs - from Meson8)
> > > > > > This means that Meson8b only has 83 actual GPIO lines. Without any holes
> > > > > > there would be 130 GPIO lines in total (120 are inherited from Meson8
> > > > > > plus 10 new from the DIF bank).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The pinctrl framework handles holes in the pin list fine, which can be
> > > > > > seen in debugfs:
> > > > > > $ cat /sys/kernel/debug/pinctrl/c1109880.pinctrl/pins
> > > > > > pin 9 (GPIOX_9)  c1109880.pinctrl
> > > > > > pin 10 (GPIOX_10)  c1109880.pinctrl
> > > > > > pin 11 (GPIOX_11)  c1109880.pinctrl
> > > > > > pin 16 (GPIOX_16)  c1109880.pinctrl
> > > > > > pin 17 (GPIOX_17)  c1109880.pinctrl
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi Martin,
> > > > > 
> > > > > While working on this controller a few weeks ago, I have seen that our current
> > > > > design does not tolerate having holes in the declared PINS. This is something
> > > > > that predate the changes mentioned here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not a big fan of the this overrides_ngpio here, I'm sure it fixes your
> > > > > problem but it seems a bit hacky, don't you think ?
> > > > 
> > > > this is the reason why I sent it as RFC - I'm open to better solutions!
> > > > 
> > > > > I would prefer either of these 2 approach:
> > > > > 
> > > > > * Update the binding and kill the necessary pins. We are still figuring out
> > > > > those chips, which is why the bindings are marked as un-stable. If sharing the
> > > > > binding with meson8 was a mistake, now is the time to fix it.
> > > > 
> > > > let's say we produce a header file which does not contain GPIOX_12:
> > > > this would be nice since it gives compile errors if non-existent GPIOs
> > > > are used (instead of failing only at run-time)
> > > > 
> > > > however, the problem is meson8b_cbus_banks (annotated here to make it
> > > > easier to read):
> > > > BANK("X", /* name */
> > > >           GPIOX_0, GPIOX_21, /* first and last GPIO */
> > > >           97, 118, /* first and last IRQ */
> > > >           4,  0, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */
> > > >           4,  0, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */
> > > >           0,  0, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */
> > > >           1,  0, /* output value register and bit offset */
> > > >           2,  0), /* input value register and bit offset */
> > > > 
> > > > let's say we want to configure GPIOX_0 as an input:
> > > > - we need to find the "offset" of this pad within the bank -> 0
> > > > - find the input/output direction register -> 0
> > > > - find the bit in that register: bit 0 + pad offset 0 = 0
> > > > - we clear bit 0 in register 0
> > > > 
> > > > with the current code configuring GPIOX_16 as input works like this:
> > > > - we need to find the "offset" of this pad within the bank -> 16
> > > > - find the input/output direction register -> 0
> > > > - find the bit in that register: bit 0 + pad offset 16 = 16
> > > > - we clear bit 16 in register 0
> > > 
> > > If offset calculation is really the problem, nothing is stopping you from the
> > > splitting BANK in two. With your example of GPIOX_12...15 missing:
> > > 
> > > BANK("X1", /* name */
> > >            GPIOX_0, GPIOX_11, /* first and last GPIO */
> > >            97, 108, /* first and last IRQ */
> > >            4,  0, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */
> > >            4,  0, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */
> > >            0,  0, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */
> > >            1,  0, /* output value register and bit offset */
> > >            2,  0), /* input value register and bit offset */
> > > 
> > > BANK("X2", /* name */
> > >            GPIOX_16, GPIOX_21, /* first and last GPIO */
> > >            113, 118, /* first and last IRQ */
> > >            X,  Y, /* pull-up/down enable register and bit offset */
> > >            X,  Y, /* pull-up/down configuration register and bit offset */
> > >            Z,  XX, /* input/output direction register and bit offset */
> > >            FOO,  0, /* output value register and bit offset */
> > >            BAR,  0), /* input value register and bit offset */
> > 
> > nice thinking :)
> > the only solution I could come up with was to change the MESON_PIN
> > definition to something like:
> > #define MESON_PIN(pad, pullen_bit, pull_bit, direction_bit,
> > output_bit, input_bit, irq_num)
> > 
> > that however means that we would have to change a lot of code in all
> > pinctrl drivers
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > let's assume that we removed GPIOX_12...15 from Meson8b
> > > > GPIOX_16 could now have the same value that was assigned to GPIOX_12
> > > > before (= 12)
> > > > but how do we now know the offset of GPIOX_16?
> > > > if we don't consider it in the calculation above we would end up
> > > > writing to bit 12 (instead of bit 16).
> > > > 
> > > > we could still cleanup the header file but leave the IDs of the
> > > > existing GPIOs untouched (so GPIOX_16 would still be 16).
> > > 
> > > I don't really get the point of doing so, especially is this patch is still
> > > needed in the end.
> > > 
> > > > however, that means that this patch is still needed because our last
> > > > ID would be DIF_4_N (= value 129) again (so with holes our total count
> > > > is still 130).
> > > > with that we wouldn't even break the DT ABI
> > > 
> > > While I prefer changing the bindings over the 'over_ngpio' tweak, it is not my
> > > favorite solution.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > * If meson8b is indeed a cost reduction, it is likely to be same the approach as
> > > > > s905x vs s905d: The D version is the same SoC with less ball pad but, as far as
> > > > > we know, the logic is still there on the silicium (same die), it is just not
> > > > > routed to the outside world. Both version share the same pinctrl driver (gxl).
> > > > > The pad not routed to the outside world can just be considered "internal pads"
> > > > 
> > > > there are a few differences between Meson8 and Meson8b, see also [0]:
> > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) CPU cores: 4x Cortex-A9
> > > > - Meson8b CPU cores: 4x Cortex-A5
> > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) GPU: Mali-450MP8
> > > > - Meson8b GPU: Mali-450MP4
> > > > - Meson8 (and Meson8m2) package size: 19mm x 19 mm, LFBGA
> > > > - Meson8b package size: 12mm x 12 mm, LFBGA
> > > > 
> > > > the pinctrl register layout seems to be *mostly* compatible between
> > > > Meson8 and Meson8b.
> > > > unfortunately it's not entirely compatible, here is one example:
> > > > - Meson8: GROUP(uart_tx_b1, 6, 23),
> > > > - Meson8b: GROUP(uart_tx_b1, 6, 19),
> > > > - Meson8: GROUP(eth_mdc, 6, 5),
> > > > - Meson8b: GROUP(eth_mdc, 6, 9),
> > > > 
> > > > > Long story short, if meson8 and meson8b share the same bindings, maybe they
> > > > > should also share the driver. If they can't share the driver because they are
> > > > > definitely incompatible, maybe they should not share the same bindings
> > > > 
> > > > based on what I have seen so far I believe that they should not share
> > > > the same bindings
> > > 
> > > It looks to me to be same gpio/pinconf IP with a few pads not exposed to the
> > > outside world, so I think they could share the bindings, and apparently fair
> > > part of the driver data.
> > > 
> > > Apparently amlogic tweaked a bit the pinmux. With the current architecture of
> > > our pinctrl driver, it should be fairly easy to register 2  drivers sharing
> > > everything but the GROUP table (and maybe the FUNCS if necessary)
> > > 
> > > If possible, I would be more in favor of this last solution, as we could kill
> > > one the pinctrl-meson8.c file, which are mostly a copy/paste of one another.
> > > While fixing you issue, we would end up with less code to maintain and save a
> > > bit of memory.
> > > 
> > > Do you see any other big issue with this approach ?
> > 
> > I would have to go through the whole list of pads to see what the
> > actual differences are
> 
> I tried to automate this as far as possible with the attached script
> you can use it like this:
> - first get the gpio.c files from the Amlogic 3.10 kernel for Meson8
> and Meson8b: [0] and [1]
> - ./list-meson8-pinmux-reg-bits.sh path/to/meson8/gpio.c | sort -u > meson8.txt
> - ./list-meson8-pinmux-reg-bits.sh path/to/meson8b/gpio.c | sort -u >
> meson8b.txt
> - diff -Naur meson8.txt meson8b.txt > diff.patch
> - (the resulting diff is attached)
> - compare the Meson8 documentation (found in a .csv file, see [2])
> with the public Meson8b datasheet (see [3])
> 
> the major differences are:
> - DIF_TTL bank only exists on Meson8b
> - GPIOZ bank only exists on Meson8
> - HDMI_TTL bank only exists on Meson8b (not supported by our mainline driver)
> - some of the Ethernet pins are using the GPIOH bank on Meson8b while
> Meson8 has these in the GPIOZ bank
> - Meson8b has various SPI pins in the GPIOH bank while Meson8 has them
> in the GPIOZ bank
> - Meson8 only has pins for one TSin interface, Meson8b seems to
> support two TSin interfaces
> 
> smaller differences are:
> - the LCD_* pins (maybe even all of the LCD support) in GPIODV only
> exists on Meson8
> - Meson8b has the I2C_A pins on GPIODV_24 and GPIODV_25 (Meson8 has
> multiple pins for this in the GPIOZ bank)
> - Meson8b has the I2C_B pins on GPIODV_26 and GPIODV_27 (Meson8 has
> these on GPIOZ_2 and GPIOZ_3)
> - Meson8b has the I2C_C pins on GPIODV_28 and GPIODV_29 (Meson8 two
> chices: either GPIOY_0 and GPIOY_1 or GPIOZ_4 and GPIOZ_5)
> - the XTAL_24M_OUT signal uses GPIODV_29 on Meson8b but GPIOX_11 on Meson8
> - Meson8b can output UART_CTS_B on GPIOX_10 - Meson8 supports GPIODV_26 instead
> - Meson8b can output UART_RTS_B on GPIOX_20 - Meson8 supports GPIODV_27 instead
> - Meson8b can output SPI_SS0 on GPIOX_20 - Meson8 supports GPIOZ_9 instead
> 
> not checked yet:
> - Meson8b seems to have a few more bits in BOOT_8 BOOT_10 and BOOT_18
> - Meson8b seems to have a few more bits in GPIOAO_2, GPIOAO_3,
> GPIOAO_6, GPIOAO_7, GPIOAO_9, GPIOAO_10 and GPIOAO_13
> - GPIOY_0, GPIOX_4, GPIOX_5, GPIOX_6, GPIOX_7, GPIOX_8, GPIOX_9
> - the changes (there are quite a few) in the GPIOY bank
> 
> notes for other pins I have randomly checked:
> - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_0 at reg9[24] - this seems
> undocumented
> - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_1 at reg9[23] - this seems
> undocumented
> - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_2 at reg9[22] - this seems
> undocumented
> - Meson8b's gpio.c has a function for GPIOX_3 at reg9[21] - this seems
> undocumented
> 
> I'm not sure if we should try to create a unified pinctrl driver for
> Meson8 and Meson8b

Thanks the detailed summary Martin ! I agree with you. meson8b obviously derives
from meson8 but there is to many subtle differences to create unified driver ...
w/o adding spaghetti code around

Is the "2 banks" solution enough to solve the problem cleanly ?

If not and it still leaves problems to be solved in the future, maybe we would
be better off with different bindings for meson8 and meson8b ? and be done with
it ...


> so far we have:
> - meson_pmx_group are roughly 67% identical (meson_pmx_func depend on
> meson_pmx_group)
> - different pinctrl_pin_desc (due to different GPIO banks)
> - different IRQ numbering
> 
> so I wonder how much we would actually save by creating a unified
> Meson8/Meson8b pinctrl driver.
> 
> as a side-note: I found out that Meson8m2 has 10 pins which each add
> one function compared to Meson8, see: [4]
> I would integrate these into the Meson8 driver (if we keep separate
> drivers for Meson8 and Meson8b) when needed, because these definitely
> don't justify adding a new pinctrl driver
> 
> 
> Regards
> Martin
> 
> 
> [0] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/gpio.c
> [1] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8b/gpio.c
> [2] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/tool/m8_gpio.csv
> [3] https://dn.odroid.com/S805/Datasheet/S805_Datasheet%20V0.8%2020150126.pdf
> [4] https://github.com/endlessm/linux-meson/blob/5cb4882cdda584878a29132aeb9a90497a121df9/arch/arm/mach-meson8/gpio.c#L242

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-19  8:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-24  0:27 [RFC PATCH v1] pinctrl: meson: meson8b: fix requesting GPIOs greater than GPIOZ_3 Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-24  0:27 ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-24  8:28 ` Jerome Brunet
2018-01-24  8:28   ` Jerome Brunet
2018-01-24 10:10   ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-24 10:10     ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-24 14:52     ` Jerome Brunet
2018-01-24 14:52       ` Jerome Brunet
2018-01-24 17:54       ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-24 17:54         ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-02-17 19:44         ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-02-17 19:44           ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-02-19  8:07           ` Jerome Brunet [this message]
2018-02-19 21:19             ` Martin Blumenstingl
2018-01-25  4:03 ` Linus Lüssing
2018-01-25  4:03   ` Linus Lüssing

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1519027637.2883.118.camel@baylibre.com \
    --to=jbrunet@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linus-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.