From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benoit Cousson Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 2/8] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:44:33 +0200 Message-ID: <52385CC1.7040908@baylibre.com> References: <1375825216-18119-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <52027CDC.8080205@ti.com> <5202A927.4030708@ti.com> <5203BCEE.9090902@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5203BCEE.9090902-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Suman Anna Cc: Kumar Gala , Tony Lindgren , Paul Walmsley , Ohad Ben-Cohen , Jassi Brar , linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi Suman, On 08/08/2013 17:44, Suman Anna wrote: > On 08/08/2013 09:34 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >> >>> On 08/07/2013 12:41 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kumar, >>>>> >>>>>>> Logic has been added to the OMAP2+ mailbox code to >>>>>>> parse the mailbox dt nodes and construct the different >>>>>>> mailboxes associated with the instance. The design is >>>>>>> based on gathering the same information that was being >>>>>>> passed previously through the platform data, except for >>>>>>> the interrupt type configuration information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt | 43 +++++++ >>>>>>> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-omap2.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++--- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>> index 0000000..8ffb08a >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ >>>>>>> +OMAP2+ Mailbox Driver >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +Required properties: >>>>>>> +- compatible: Should be one of the following, >>>>>>> + "ti,omap2-mailbox" for >>>>>>> + OMAP2420, OMAP2430, OMAP3430, OMAP3630 SoCs >>>>>>> + "ti,omap4-mailbox" for >>>>>>> + OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, DRA7xx SoCs >>>>>>> +- reg: Contains the mailbox register address range (base address >>>>>>> + and length) >>>>>>> +- interrupts: Contains the interrupt information for the mailbox >>>>>>> + device. The format is dependent on which interrupt >>>>>>> + controller the OMAP device uses >>>>>>> +- ti,hwmods: Name of the hwmod associated with the mailbox >>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-users: Number of targets (processor devices) that the mailbox device >>>>>>> + can interrupt >>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-fifos: Number of h/w fifos within the mailbox device >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't "ti,mbox-num-users", "ti,mbox-num-fifos" this SoC specific, why do we need to encode in the device tree. Can we not have a more SoC specific compatiable and encode such info in the driver as part of the .data field in of_device_id ? >>>>> >>>>> They are IP design parameters for the number of h/w fifos and interrupts >>>>> coming out of the IP block, with the functionality identical. This >>>>> information could not be read from any registers. Until OMAP5, we always >>>>> had a single IP in the SoC and so these could been encoded in the >>>>> driver. But in DRA7xx, a new SoC, we have 13 mailboxes which have >>>>> differing number of these properties even though the functional IP block >>>>> is same. >>>> >>>> Ah, I see. Since you've got examples of the same IP with different design params in a given SoC than this makes sense. >>>> >>>> Is that true of ti,mbox-num-users? >>> >>> Yes, it is true of both "ti,mbox-num-users" and "ti,mbox-num-fifos". >> >> So I think it would be good to update the binding to convey that SoCs might have multiple mbox units w/different design pararms (maybe a short blurb as part of the intro). > > Sure will do. Will wait for Benoit also to come back on this series if I > need to address any further review comments. I had the same concern than Kumar originally, so if nobody has anymore complain with this binding, that fine to me. At least for the DTS part. Regards, Benoit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bcousson@baylibre.com (Benoit Cousson) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 15:44:33 +0200 Subject: [PATCHv3 2/8] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices In-Reply-To: <5203BCEE.9090902@ti.com> References: <1375825216-18119-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <52027CDC.8080205@ti.com> <5202A927.4030708@ti.com> <5203BCEE.9090902@ti.com> Message-ID: <52385CC1.7040908@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Suman, On 08/08/2013 17:44, Suman Anna wrote: > On 08/08/2013 09:34 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >> >>> On 08/07/2013 12:41 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kumar, >>>>> >>>>>>> Logic has been added to the OMAP2+ mailbox code to >>>>>>> parse the mailbox dt nodes and construct the different >>>>>>> mailboxes associated with the instance. The design is >>>>>>> based on gathering the same information that was being >>>>>>> passed previously through the platform data, except for >>>>>>> the interrupt type configuration information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt | 43 +++++++ >>>>>>> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-omap2.c | 130 ++++++++++++++++++--- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>> index 0000000..8ffb08a >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ >>>>>>> +OMAP2+ Mailbox Driver >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +Required properties: >>>>>>> +- compatible: Should be one of the following, >>>>>>> + "ti,omap2-mailbox" for >>>>>>> + OMAP2420, OMAP2430, OMAP3430, OMAP3630 SoCs >>>>>>> + "ti,omap4-mailbox" for >>>>>>> + OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, DRA7xx SoCs >>>>>>> +- reg: Contains the mailbox register address range (base address >>>>>>> + and length) >>>>>>> +- interrupts: Contains the interrupt information for the mailbox >>>>>>> + device. The format is dependent on which interrupt >>>>>>> + controller the OMAP device uses >>>>>>> +- ti,hwmods: Name of the hwmod associated with the mailbox >>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-users: Number of targets (processor devices) that the mailbox device >>>>>>> + can interrupt >>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-fifos: Number of h/w fifos within the mailbox device >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't "ti,mbox-num-users", "ti,mbox-num-fifos" this SoC specific, why do we need to encode in the device tree. Can we not have a more SoC specific compatiable and encode such info in the driver as part of the .data field in of_device_id ? >>>>> >>>>> They are IP design parameters for the number of h/w fifos and interrupts >>>>> coming out of the IP block, with the functionality identical. This >>>>> information could not be read from any registers. Until OMAP5, we always >>>>> had a single IP in the SoC and so these could been encoded in the >>>>> driver. But in DRA7xx, a new SoC, we have 13 mailboxes which have >>>>> differing number of these properties even though the functional IP block >>>>> is same. >>>> >>>> Ah, I see. Since you've got examples of the same IP with different design params in a given SoC than this makes sense. >>>> >>>> Is that true of ti,mbox-num-users? >>> >>> Yes, it is true of both "ti,mbox-num-users" and "ti,mbox-num-fifos". >> >> So I think it would be good to update the binding to convey that SoCs might have multiple mbox units w/different design pararms (maybe a short blurb as part of the intro). > > Sure will do. Will wait for Benoit also to come back on this series if I > need to address any further review comments. I had the same concern than Kumar originally, so if nobody has anymore complain with this binding, that fine to me. At least for the DTS part. Regards, Benoit