Re: a case for a common efuse API?

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3212 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:32:03PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/09/14 01:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:00:23PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On MSM chips we have some efuses (called qfprom) where we store things
> >> like calibration data, speed bins, etc. We need to read out data from
> >> the efuses in various drivers like the cpufreq, thermal, etc. This
> >> essentially boils down to a bunch of readls on the efuse from a handful
> >> of different drivers. In devicetree this looks a little odd because
> >> these drivers end up having an extra reg property (or two) that points
> >> to a register in the efuse and some length, i.e you see this:
> >>
> >> 	thermal-sensor@34000 {
> >> 		compatible = "sensor";
> >> 		reg = <0x34000 0x1000>, <0x10018 0xc>;
> >> 		reg-names = "sensor", "efuse_calib";
> >> 	}
> >>
> >>
> >> I imagine in DT we want something more like this:
> >>
> >> 	efuse: efuse@10000 {
> >> 		compatible = "efuse";
> >> 		reg = <0x10000 0x1000>;
> >> 	}
> >>
> >> 	thermal-sensor@34000 {
> >> 		compatible = "sensor";
> >> 		reg = <0x34000 0x1000>;
> >> 		efuse = <&efuse 0x18>;
> >> 	}
> > We have pretty much the same things in the Allwinner SoCs. We have an
> > efuse directly mapped into memory, with a few informations like a MAC
> > address, the SoC ID, the serial number, some RSA keys for the device,
> > etc.
> >
> > The thing is, some boards expose these informations in an external
> > EEPROM as well.
> >
> > I started working and went quite far to create an "eeprom" framework
> > to handle these cases, with a dt representation similar to what you
> > were exposing.
> >
> > https://github.com/mripard/linux/tree/eeprom-framework-at24
> >
> > It was working quite well, I was about to send it, but was told that I
> > should all be moved to MTD, and given up on it.
> 
> Did anything ever get merged? Or the whole thing was dropped?

Nope, I just never posted it. I could send it as an RFC though, and
see what are the feedbacks.

> That branch looks like what I want, assuming we could get an agreement
> on the binding. It looks like pretty much every SoC has this, and there
> isn't any API or binding for it that I've seen. The only thing I see is
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom.txt and that doesn't cover the
> client aspect at all.
> 
> Taking a quick peek at the code, it might be better to change the read
> API to take a buffer and length, so that the caller doesn't need to free
> the data allocated by the eeprom layer. It also makes it symmetrical
> with the write API. We'd probably also need to make it work really early
> for SoC's like Tegra where we want to read the SoC revision early. So
> probably split off the device registration part to a later time to allow
> register() to be called early.

I guess that the kind of things we could discuss after posting these
patches, but yep, it looks reasonnable.

I'll try to get things a bit cleaner, and post them in the next days.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]