[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> Some Renesas SoCs may exist in different revisions, providing slightly
> different functionalities (e.g. R-Car H3 ES1.x and ES2.0), and behavior
> (errate and quirks).  This needs to be catered for by drivers and/or
> platform code.  The recently proposed soc_device_match() API seems like
> a good fit to handle this.
>
> This patch series implements the core infrastructure to provide SoC and
> revision information through the SoC bus for Renesas ARM SoCs. It
> consists of 7 patches:
>   - Patches 1-4 provide soc_device_match(), with some related fixes,
>   - Patches 5-7 implement identification of Renesas SoCs and
>     registration with the SoC bus,
>
> Changes compared to v1:
>   - Add Acked-by,
>   - New patches:
>       - "[4/7] base: soc: Provide a dummy implementation of
>                soc_device_match()",
>       - "[5/7] ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR",
>       - "[6/7] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add device node for PRR"
>         (more similar patches available, I'm not yet spamming you all
>          with them),
>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
>   - Drop EMEV2, which doesn't have a chip ID register, and doesn't share
>     devices with other SoCs,
>   - Drop RZ/A1H and R-CAR M1A, which don't have chip ID registers (for
>     M1A: not accessible from the ARM core?),
>   - On arm, move "select SOC_BUS" from ARCH_RENESAS to Kconfig symbols
>     for SoCs that provide a chip ID register,
>   - Build renesas-soc only if SOC_BUS is enabled,
>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
>     with existing DTBs,
>   - Remove verification of product IDs; just print the ID instead,
>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
>   - Change R-Mobile APE6 fallback to use PRR instead of CCCR (it has
>     both).
>
> Merge strategy:
>   - In theory, patches 1-4 should go through Greg's driver core tree.
>     But it's a hard dependency for all users.
>     If people agree, I can provide an immutable branch in my
>     renesas-drivers repository, to be merged by all interested parties.
>     So far I'm aware of Freescale/NXP, and Renesas.

And Samsung.
Shall I create the immutable branch now?

Thanks!

>   - Patches 5-7 obviously have to go through Simon's Renesas tree (after
>     merging the soc_device_match() core), and arm-soc.
>
> Tested on (machine, soc_id, optional revision):
>     EMEV2 KZM9D Board, emev2
>     Genmai, r7s72100
>     APE6EVM, r8a73a4, ES1.0
>     armadillo 800 eva, r8a7740, ES2.0
>     bockw, r8a7778
>     marzen, r8a7779, ES1.0
>     Lager, r8a7790, ES1.0
>     Koelsch, r8a7791, ES1.0
>     Porter, r8a7791, ES3.0
>     Blanche, r8a7792, ES1.1
>     Gose, r8a7793, ES1.0
>     Alt, r8a7794, ES1.0
>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7795, r8a7795, ES1.0
>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7795, r8a7795, ES1.1
>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7796, r8a7796, ES1.0
>     KZM-A9-GT, sh73a0, ES2.0
>
> For your convenience, this series (incl. more DT updates to add device
> nodes for CCCR and PRR to all other Renesas ARM SoCs) is also available
> in the topic/renesas-soc-id-v2 branch of my renesas-drivers git
> repository at
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
> Its first user is support for R-Car H3 ES2.0 in branch
> topic/r8a7795-es2-v1-rebased2.
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> Arnd Bergmann (1):
>   base: soc: Introduce soc_device_match() interface
>
> Geert Uytterhoeven (6):
>   base: soc: Early register bus when needed
>   base: soc: Check for NULL SoC device attributes
>   base: soc: Provide a dummy implementation of soc_device_match()
>   ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR
>   arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add device node for PRR
>   soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus
>
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt |  26 +++++
>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig                     |   3 +
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms                       |   1 +
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi           |   5 +
>  drivers/base/Kconfig                               |   1 +
>  drivers/base/soc.c                                 |  79 +++++++++++++
>  drivers/soc/renesas/Makefile                       |   2 +
>  drivers/soc/renesas/renesas-soc.c                  | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/sys_soc.h                            |   9 ++
>  9 files changed, 256 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/soc/renesas/renesas-soc.c

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:35:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> > Some Renesas SoCs may exist in different revisions, providing slightly
> > different functionalities (e.g. R-Car H3 ES1.x and ES2.0), and behavior
> > (errate and quirks).  This needs to be catered for by drivers and/or
> > platform code.  The recently proposed soc_device_match() API seems like
> > a good fit to handle this.
> >
> > This patch series implements the core infrastructure to provide SoC and
> > revision information through the SoC bus for Renesas ARM SoCs. It
> > consists of 7 patches:
> >   - Patches 1-4 provide soc_device_match(), with some related fixes,
> >   - Patches 5-7 implement identification of Renesas SoCs and
> >     registration with the SoC bus,
> >
> > Changes compared to v1:
> >   - Add Acked-by,
> >   - New patches:
> >       - "[4/7] base: soc: Provide a dummy implementation of
> >                soc_device_match()",
> >       - "[5/7] ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR",
> >       - "[6/7] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add device node for PRR"
> >         (more similar patches available, I'm not yet spamming you all
> >          with them),
> >   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
> >   - Drop EMEV2, which doesn't have a chip ID register, and doesn't share
> >     devices with other SoCs,
> >   - Drop RZ/A1H and R-CAR M1A, which don't have chip ID registers (for
> >     M1A: not accessible from the ARM core?),
> >   - On arm, move "select SOC_BUS" from ARCH_RENESAS to Kconfig symbols
> >     for SoCs that provide a chip ID register,
> >   - Build renesas-soc only if SOC_BUS is enabled,
> >   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
> >     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
> >     with existing DTBs,
> >   - Remove verification of product IDs; just print the ID instead,
> >   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
> >   - Change R-Mobile APE6 fallback to use PRR instead of CCCR (it has
> >     both).
> >
> > Merge strategy:
> >   - In theory, patches 1-4 should go through Greg's driver core tree.
> >     But it's a hard dependency for all users.
> >     If people agree, I can provide an immutable branch in my
> >     renesas-drivers repository, to be merged by all interested parties.
> >     So far I'm aware of Freescale/NXP, and Renesas.
> 
> And Samsung.

Yes, I would need it as well.

> Shall I create the immutable branch now?

...or the applying person could provide one.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
>> Some Renesas SoCs may exist in different revisions, providing slightly
>> different functionalities (e.g. R-Car H3 ES1.x and ES2.0), and behavior
>> (errate and quirks).  This needs to be catered for by drivers and/or
>> platform code.  The recently proposed soc_device_match() API seems like
>> a good fit to handle this.
>>
>> This patch series implements the core infrastructure to provide SoC and
>> revision information through the SoC bus for Renesas ARM SoCs. It
>> consists of 7 patches:
>>   - Patches 1-4 provide soc_device_match(), with some related fixes,
>>   - Patches 5-7 implement identification of Renesas SoCs and
>>     registration with the SoC bus,
>>
>> Changes compared to v1:
>>   - Add Acked-by,
>>   - New patches:
>>       - "[4/7] base: soc: Provide a dummy implementation of
>>                soc_device_match()",
>>       - "[5/7] ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR",
>>       - "[6/7] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add device node for PRR"
>>         (more similar patches available, I'm not yet spamming you all
>>          with them),
>>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
>>   - Drop EMEV2, which doesn't have a chip ID register, and doesn't share
>>     devices with other SoCs,
>>   - Drop RZ/A1H and R-CAR M1A, which don't have chip ID registers (for
>>     M1A: not accessible from the ARM core?),
>>   - On arm, move "select SOC_BUS" from ARCH_RENESAS to Kconfig symbols
>>     for SoCs that provide a chip ID register,
>>   - Build renesas-soc only if SOC_BUS is enabled,
>>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
>>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
>>     with existing DTBs,
>>   - Remove verification of product IDs; just print the ID instead,
>>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
>>   - Change R-Mobile APE6 fallback to use PRR instead of CCCR (it has
>>     both).
>>
>> Merge strategy:
>>   - In theory, patches 1-4 should go through Greg's driver core tree.
>>     But it's a hard dependency for all users.
>>     If people agree, I can provide an immutable branch in my
>>     renesas-drivers repository, to be merged by all interested parties.
>>     So far I'm aware of Freescale/NXP, and Renesas.
>
> And Samsung.
> Shall I create the immutable branch now?

Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?

Thanks again!

>>   - Patches 5-7 obviously have to go through Simon's Renesas tree (after
>>     merging the soc_device_match() core), and arm-soc.
>>
>> Tested on (machine, soc_id, optional revision):
>>     EMEV2 KZM9D Board, emev2
>>     Genmai, r7s72100
>>     APE6EVM, r8a73a4, ES1.0
>>     armadillo 800 eva, r8a7740, ES2.0
>>     bockw, r8a7778
>>     marzen, r8a7779, ES1.0
>>     Lager, r8a7790, ES1.0
>>     Koelsch, r8a7791, ES1.0
>>     Porter, r8a7791, ES3.0
>>     Blanche, r8a7792, ES1.1
>>     Gose, r8a7793, ES1.0
>>     Alt, r8a7794, ES1.0
>>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7795, r8a7795, ES1.0
>>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7795, r8a7795, ES1.1
>>     Renesas Salvator-X board based on r8a7796, r8a7796, ES1.0
>>     KZM-A9-GT, sh73a0, ES2.0
>>
>> For your convenience, this series (incl. more DT updates to add device
>> nodes for CCCR and PRR to all other Renesas ARM SoCs) is also available
>> in the topic/renesas-soc-id-v2 branch of my renesas-drivers git
>> repository at
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
>> Its first user is support for R-Car H3 ES2.0 in branch
>> topic/r8a7795-es2-v1-rebased2.
>>
>> Thanks for your comments!
>>
>> Arnd Bergmann (1):
>>   base: soc: Introduce soc_device_match() interface
>>
>> Geert Uytterhoeven (6):
>>   base: soc: Early register bus when needed
>>   base: soc: Check for NULL SoC device attributes
>>   base: soc: Provide a dummy implementation of soc_device_match()
>>   ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR
>>   arm64: dts: r8a7795: Add device node for PRR
>>   soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:34:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > And Samsung.
> > Shall I create the immutable branch now?
> 
> Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?

I still had some comments for patch 7, but that shouldn't stop
you from creating a branch for the first three so everyone can
build on top of that.

	Arnd

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:34:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > And Samsung.
>> > Shall I create the immutable branch now?
>>
>> Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?
>
> I still had some comments for patch 7, but that shouldn't stop
> you from creating a branch for the first three so everyone can
> build on top of that.

Thanks!

What about patch [4/7]?
Haven't you received it? Your address was in the To-line for all 7 patches.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:19:06 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:34:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > And Samsung.
> >> > Shall I create the immutable branch now?
> >>
> >> Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?
> >
> > I still had some comments for patch 7, but that shouldn't stop
> > you from creating a branch for the first three so everyone can
> > build on top of that.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> What about patch [4/7]?
> Haven't you received it? Your address was in the To-line for all 7 patches.

Ok, I see it now, looks good. That should be included as well then.

	Arnd

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Ulf,

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:19:06 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:34:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> > And Samsung.
>> >> > Shall I create the immutable branch now?
>> >>
>> >> Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?
>> >
>> > I still had some comments for patch 7, but that shouldn't stop
>> > you from creating a branch for the first three so everyone can
>> > build on top of that.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> What about patch [4/7]?
>> Haven't you received it? Your address was in the To-line for all 7 patches.
>
> Ok, I see it now, looks good. That should be included as well then.

Thanks, I've created the branch/tag :

    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
    branch soc-device-match
    signed tag soc-device-match-tag1

In the mean time, Ulf has applied the first two patches to mmc/next, on top
of lots of MMC work :-(

Ulf, as this is not only a dependency for Freescale/NXP (for sdhci-of-esdhc),
but also for Samsung and Renesas, would it still be possible to replace these
two commits

    8b82c17a8ae533d6 base: soc: introduce soc_device_match() interface
    6fa350172b098f0f base: soc: Check for NULL SoC device attributes

by a merge of soc-device-match-tag1?

You can find more info in the full thread at
https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg148558.html

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Thanks, I've created the branch/tag :
>
>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
>     branch soc-device-match
>     signed tag soc-device-match-tag1

Tested by kbuild test robot:

    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
 soc-device-match
    da65a1589dacc7ec44ea0557a14d70a39d991f32  base: soc: Provide a
dummy implementation of soc_device_match()
    elapsed time: 101m
    configs tested: 85

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 0/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Ulf Hansson]

On 10 November 2016 at 10:22, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:19:06 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:34:33 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> >> > And Samsung.
>>> >> > Shall I create the immutable branch now?
>>> >>
>>> >> Arnd: are you happy with the new patches and changes?
>>> >
>>> > I still had some comments for patch 7, but that shouldn't stop
>>> > you from creating a branch for the first three so everyone can
>>> > build on top of that.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> What about patch [4/7]?
>>> Haven't you received it? Your address was in the To-line for all 7 patches.
>>
>> Ok, I see it now, looks good. That should be included as well then.
>
> Thanks, I've created the branch/tag :
>
>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/geert/renesas-drivers.git
>     branch soc-device-match
>     signed tag soc-device-match-tag1
>
> In the mean time, Ulf has applied the first two patches to mmc/next, on top
> of lots of MMC work :-(

No worries! :-)

>
> Ulf, as this is not only a dependency for Freescale/NXP (for sdhci-of-esdhc),
> but also for Samsung and Renesas, would it still be possible to replace these
> two commits
>
>     8b82c17a8ae533d6 base: soc: introduce soc_device_match() interface
>     6fa350172b098f0f base: soc: Check for NULL SoC device attributes
>
> by a merge of soc-device-match-tag1?

Yes, I will take care of it during the day.

Kind regards
Uffe

[PATCH v2 7/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday, October 31, 2016 12:30:55 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> v2:
>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,

I think I'd rather have seen the family names left in there, but it's
not important, so up to you.

>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
>     with existing DTBs,

I only see patches 2, 3, 5, and 7 in my inbox, so I'm lacking the DT
binding for these, among other things.

It does seem wrong to have a device node for a specific register though.
Shouldn't the node be for the block of registers that these are inside
of?

>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,

Why? My objection was to hardcoding the register, not to registering
the device? I think I'd rather see the device registered with an
empty revision string.

> +#define CCCR   0xe600101c      /* Common Chip Code Register */
> +#define PRR    0xff000044      /* Product Register */
> +#define PRR3   0xfff00044      /* Product Register on R-Car Gen3 */
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id renesas_socs[] __initconst = {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A73A4
> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a73a4",      .data = (void *)PRR, },
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7740
> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a7740",      .data = (void *)CCCR, },
> +#endif

My preference here would be to list the register address only for
SoCs that are known to need them, while also having .dtb files that
don't have the nodes.

> +static int __init renesas_soc_init(void)
> +{
> +       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
> +       const struct of_device_id *match;
> +       void __iomem *chipid = NULL;
> +       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> +       struct device_node *np;
> +       unsigned int product;
> +
> +       np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, renesas_socs, &match);
> +       if (!np)
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +
> +       of_node_put(np);
> +
> +       /* Try PRR first, then CCCR, then hardcoded fallback */
> +       np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,prr");
> +       if (!np)
> +               np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,cccr");
> +       if (np) {
> +               chipid = of_iomap(np, 0);
> +               of_node_put(np);
> +       } else if (match->data) {
> +               chipid = ioremap((uintptr_t)match->data, 4);
> +       }
> +       if (!chipid)
> 

Here, I'd turn the order around and look for the DT nodes of the
devices first. Only if they are not found, look at the compatible
string of the root node. No need to search for a node though,
you know which one it is when you look for a compatible =
"renesas,r8a73a4".

	Arnd

[PATCH v2 7/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

Thanks for your comments!

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 12:30:55 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> v2:
>>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
>
> I think I'd rather have seen the family names left in there, but it's
> not important, so up to you.

They're not useful for matching, as family names may change anytime, and don't
always say much about the hardware capabilities.
E.g. SH-Mobile -> R-Mobile -> R-Car | RZ/A | RZ/G
Some SH-Mobile (even some R-Car) parts are SuperH only, others have ARM and
SuperH.

At least the SoC part numbers are stable (hmm, sh73a0 == r8a73a0).

>>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
>>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
>>     with existing DTBs,
>
> I only see patches 2, 3, 5, and 7 in my inbox, so I'm lacking the DT
> binding for these, among other things.

I understand you've received them in the mean time?

> It does seem wrong to have a device node for a specific register though.
> Shouldn't the node be for the block of registers that these are inside
> of?

On R-Mobile APE6, R-Car Gen2 and Gen3, PRR is a lone register.
On R-Car Gen1, it's not even documented (and doesn't exist on all parts).

On SH-Mobile/R-Mobile, CCCR may be part of the HPB/APB register block, which
we further don't touch at all.
On R-Car Gen2, it's not documented, but does exist.

BTW, see why I'd prefer not to have it in DT at all, and go for KISS in code
we can change at any time? To avoid mistakes we have to keep on supporting
forever.

>>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
>
> Why? My objection was to hardcoding the register, not to registering
> the device? I think I'd rather see the device registered with an
> empty revision string.

If there's no chip ID register, there's no reason to use soc_device_match(),
as we can always look at a compatible value. All SoCs listed in this driver
have a chip ID register.

if you want me to register the soc_bus for  those SoCs regardless, I want to
re-add r7s72100 (RZ/A) and r8a7778 (R-Car M1A), who don't have chip ID
registers ;-)

>> +#define CCCR   0xe600101c      /* Common Chip Code Register */
>> +#define PRR    0xff000044      /* Product Register */
>> +#define PRR3   0xfff00044      /* Product Register on R-Car Gen3 */
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id renesas_socs[] __initconst = {
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A73A4
>> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a73a4",      .data = (void *)PRR, },
>> +#endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7740
>> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a7740",      .data = (void *)CCCR, },
>> +#endif
>
> My preference here would be to list the register address only for
> SoCs that are known to need them, while also having .dtb files that
> don't have the nodes.

Even if drivers don't have to handle differences, there's been a long
outstanding request to print SoC revision information during bootup
(E.g. "Does it still work on ES1.0?"). Hence that covers all SoCs.

>> +static int __init renesas_soc_init(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
>> +       const struct of_device_id *match;
>> +       void __iomem *chipid = NULL;
>> +       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
>> +       struct device_node *np;
>> +       unsigned int product;
>> +
>> +       np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, renesas_socs, &match);
>> +       if (!np)
>> +               return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +       of_node_put(np);
>> +
>> +       /* Try PRR first, then CCCR, then hardcoded fallback */
>> +       np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,prr");
>> +       if (!np)
>> +               np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,cccr");
>> +       if (np) {
>> +               chipid = of_iomap(np, 0);
>> +               of_node_put(np);
>> +       } else if (match->data) {
>> +               chipid = ioremap((uintptr_t)match->data, 4);
>> +       }
>> +       if (!chipid)
>>
>
> Here, I'd turn the order around and look for the DT nodes of the
> devices first. Only if they are not found, look at the compatible
> string of the root node. No need to search for a node though,
> you know which one it is when you look for a compatible =
> "renesas,r8a73a4".

"renesas,r8a73a4" is the root node, not the device, so it does not have the
"reg" property for reading the chip ID?

There is no SoC part number in the "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" nodes.
Hence I always need to look at the root nodes.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 7/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:19:20 AM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> Thanks for your comments!
> 
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 12:30:55 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> v2:
> >>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
> >
> > I think I'd rather have seen the family names left in there, but it's
> > not important, so up to you.
> 
> They're not useful for matching, as family names may change anytime, and don't
> always say much about the hardware capabilities.
> E.g. SH-Mobile -> R-Mobile -> R-Car | RZ/A | RZ/G
> Some SH-Mobile (even some R-Car) parts are SuperH only, others have ARM and
> SuperH.
> 
> At least the SoC part numbers are stable (hmm, sh73a0 == r8a73a0).

I think the marketing names are much more useful for humans looking
at the sysfs files than the kernel doing matching on, but both use
cases are important.

> >>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
> >>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
> >>     with existing DTBs,
> >
> > I only see patches 2, 3, 5, and 7 in my inbox, so I'm lacking the DT
> > binding for these, among other things.
> 
> I understand you've received them in the mean time?

Yes, I found them in my inbox later, not sure why I didn't see them
at first.

> > It does seem wrong to have a device node for a specific register though.
> > Shouldn't the node be for the block of registers that these are inside
> > of?
> 
> On R-Mobile APE6, R-Car Gen2 and Gen3, PRR is a lone register.
> On R-Car Gen1, it's not even documented (and doesn't exist on all parts).

It just seems odd to have it at address 0xff000044 when all the other
devices are at page-aligned addresses. Do you mean that accessing
0xff000040 or 0xff000048 will result in a bus-level exception for a
missing register and just 0xff000044 is actually valid for access,
or is it just the only thing that is documented?

> On SH-Mobile/R-Mobile, CCCR may be part of the HPB/APB register block, which
> we further don't touch at all.
> On R-Car Gen2, it's not documented, but does exist.

This is where the family names would come in handy ;-) I now have
no idea which chip(s) you are referring to.

If you know the name of the register block, just put it into DT with
that name. The driver can trivially add the right offset.

> >>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
> >
> > Why? My objection was to hardcoding the register, not to registering
> > the device? I think I'd rather see the device registered with an
> > empty revision string.
> 
> If there's no chip ID register, there's no reason to use soc_device_match(),
> as we can always look at a compatible value. All SoCs listed in this driver
> have a chip ID register.

But you may still have user space tools looking into sysfs, e.g. to
figure out how to install a kernel that the boot loader can find,
or which hardware specific distro packages to install.

> if you want me to register the soc_bus for  those SoCs regardless, I want to
> re-add r7s72100 (RZ/A) and r8a7778 (R-Car M1A), who don't have chip ID
> registers ;-)

Right. Just don't encode too much knowledge about the SoCs into the
driver, so we are prepared for adding new ones: We should still look
for the registers in DT on all chips.

> >> +#define CCCR   0xe600101c      /* Common Chip Code Register */
> >> +#define PRR    0xff000044      /* Product Register */
> >> +#define PRR3   0xfff00044      /* Product Register on R-Car Gen3 */
> >> +
> >> +static const struct of_device_id renesas_socs[] __initconst = {
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A73A4
> >> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a73a4",      .data = (void *)PRR, },
> >> +#endif
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7740
> >> +       { .compatible = "renesas,r8a7740",      .data = (void *)CCCR, },
> >> +#endif
> >
> > My preference here would be to list the register address only for
> > SoCs that are known to need them, while also having .dtb files that
> > don't have the nodes.
> 
> Even if drivers don't have to handle differences, there's been a long
> outstanding request to print SoC revision information during bootup
> (E.g. "Does it still work on ES1.0?"). Hence that covers all SoCs.

Ok, fair enough.

> >> +static int __init renesas_soc_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> +       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
> >> +       const struct of_device_id *match;
> >> +       void __iomem *chipid = NULL;
> >> +       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> >> +       struct device_node *np;
> >> +       unsigned int product;
> >> +
> >> +       np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, renesas_socs, &match);
> >> +       if (!np)
> >> +               return -ENODEV;
> >> +
> >> +       of_node_put(np);
> >> +
> >> +       /* Try PRR first, then CCCR, then hardcoded fallback */
> >> +       np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,prr");
> >> +       if (!np)
> >> +               np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,cccr");
> >> +       if (np) {
> >> +               chipid = of_iomap(np, 0);
> >> +               of_node_put(np);
> >> +       } else if (match->data) {
> >> +               chipid = ioremap((uintptr_t)match->data, 4);
> >> +       }
> >> +       if (!chipid)
> >>
> >
> > Here, I'd turn the order around and look for the DT nodes of the
> > devices first. Only if they are not found, look at the compatible
> > string of the root node. No need to search for a node though,
> > you know which one it is when you look for a compatible =
> > "renesas,r8a73a4".
> 
> "renesas,r8a73a4" is the root node, not the device, so it does not have the
> "reg" property for reading the chip ID?

I mean replace of_find_matching_node_and_match() with
of_match_node(renesas_socs, of_root).

It does the same thing, just more efficiently.
 
> There is no SoC part number in the "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" nodes.
> Hence I always need to look at the root nodes.

Not sure what that would protect you from. Could you have a renesas,cccr


	Arnd

[PATCH v2 7/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Arnd,

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:19:20 AM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 12:30:55 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> v2:
>> >>   - Drop SoC families and family names; use fixed "Renesas" instead,
>> >
>> > I think I'd rather have seen the family names left in there, but it's
>> > not important, so up to you.
>>
>> They're not useful for matching, as family names may change anytime, and don't
>> always say much about the hardware capabilities.
>> E.g. SH-Mobile -> R-Mobile -> R-Car | RZ/A | RZ/G
>> Some SH-Mobile (even some R-Car) parts are SuperH only, others have ARM and
>> SuperH.
>>
>> At least the SoC part numbers are stable (hmm, sh73a0 == r8a73a0).
>
> I think the marketing names are much more useful for humans looking
> at the sysfs files than the kernel doing matching on, but both use
> cases are important.

OK, I'll re-add the family names for humans reading sysfs.

>> >>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
>> >>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
>> >>     with existing DTBs,

>> > It does seem wrong to have a device node for a specific register though.
>> > Shouldn't the node be for the block of registers that these are inside
>> > of?
>>
>> On R-Mobile APE6, R-Car Gen2 and Gen3, PRR is a lone register.
>> On R-Car Gen1, it's not even documented (and doesn't exist on all parts).
>
> It just seems odd to have it at address 0xff000044 when all the other
> devices are at page-aligned addresses. Do you mean that accessing
> 0xff000040 or 0xff000048 will result in a bus-level exception for a
> missing register and just 0xff000044 is actually valid for access,
> or is it just the only thing that is documented?

For PRR, all other registers in the page read as all zeroes on all SoCs that
have it. So it really is a lone register.

>> On SH-Mobile/R-Mobile, CCCR may be part of the HPB/APB register block, which
>> we further don't touch at all.
>> On R-Car Gen2, it's not documented, but does exist.
>
> This is where the family names would come in handy ;-) I now have
> no idea which chip(s) you are referring to.

SH/R-Mobile are r8a7740, r8a73a4, sh73a0.
R-Car Gen2 are r8a779[0-4].

> If you know the name of the register block, just put it into DT with
> that name. The driver can trivially add the right offset.

CCCR is different. The amount of registers that read as non-zero depends a lot
on the actual SoC.

HPB/APB is gonna need real DT bindings, which needs some more investigation.
Hence if you don't mind, I'd like to postpone that part, which only affects
the older SoCs. And I'll drop the "renesas,cccr" binding.

For now, having revision detection for R-Car Gen3 (r8a779[56]) using PRR is
most urgent, as several drivers (e.g. HDMI, Ethernet, clocks, pinctrl) are
waiting for this support. So I'd like to have that dependency in v4.10.

>> >>   - Don't register the SoC bus if the chip ID register is missing,
>> >
>> > Why? My objection was to hardcoding the register, not to registering
>> > the device? I think I'd rather see the device registered with an
>> > empty revision string.
>>
>> If there's no chip ID register, there's no reason to use soc_device_match(),
>> as we can always look at a compatible value. All SoCs listed in this driver
>> have a chip ID register.
>
> But you may still have user space tools looking into sysfs, e.g. to
> figure out how to install a kernel that the boot loader can find,
> or which hardware specific distro packages to install.
>
>> if you want me to register the soc_bus for  those SoCs regardless, I want to
>> re-add r7s72100 (RZ/A) and r8a7778 (R-Car M1A), who don't have chip ID
>> registers ;-)
>
> Right. Just don't encode too much knowledge about the SoCs into the
> driver, so we are prepared for adding new ones: We should still look
> for the registers in DT on all chips.

OK, will re-add.

>> >> +static int __init renesas_soc_init(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> +       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
>> >> +       const struct of_device_id *match;
>> >> +       void __iomem *chipid = NULL;
>> >> +       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
>> >> +       struct device_node *np;
>> >> +       unsigned int product;
>> >> +
>> >> +       np = of_find_matching_node_and_match(NULL, renesas_socs, &match);
>> >> +       if (!np)
>> >> +               return -ENODEV;
>> >> +
>> >> +       of_node_put(np);
>> >> +
>> >> +       /* Try PRR first, then CCCR, then hardcoded fallback */
>> >> +       np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,prr");
>> >> +       if (!np)
>> >> +               np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "renesas,cccr");
>> >> +       if (np) {
>> >> +               chipid = of_iomap(np, 0);
>> >> +               of_node_put(np);
>> >> +       } else if (match->data) {
>> >> +               chipid = ioremap((uintptr_t)match->data, 4);
>> >> +       }
>> >> +       if (!chipid)
>> >>
>> >
>> > Here, I'd turn the order around and look for the DT nodes of the
>> > devices first. Only if they are not found, look at the compatible
>> > string of the root node. No need to search for a node though,
>> > you know which one it is when you look for a compatible =
>> > "renesas,r8a73a4".
>>
>> "renesas,r8a73a4" is the root node, not the device, so it does not have the
>> "reg" property for reading the chip ID?
>
> I mean replace of_find_matching_node_and_match() with
> of_match_node(renesas_socs, of_root).
>
> It does the same thing, just more efficiently.

OK (didn't know "of_root" was available for public use ;-)

>> There is no SoC part number in the "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" nodes.
>> Hence I always need to look at the root nodes.
>
> Not sure what that would protect you from. Could you have a renesas,cccr

Looks like you forgot to finish your sentence?

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

[PATCH v2 7/7] soc: renesas: Identify SoC and register with the SoC bus

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday, November 14, 2016 11:51:15 AM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:19:20 AM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 12:30:55 PM CET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> >>   - Use "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" device nodes in DT if
> >> >>     available, else fall back to hardcoded addresses for compatibility
> >> >>     with existing DTBs,
> 
> >> > It does seem wrong to have a device node for a specific register though.
> >> > Shouldn't the node be for the block of registers that these are inside
> >> > of?
> >>
> >> On R-Mobile APE6, R-Car Gen2 and Gen3, PRR is a lone register.
> >> On R-Car Gen1, it's not even documented (and doesn't exist on all parts).
> >
> > It just seems odd to have it at address 0xff000044 when all the other
> > devices are at page-aligned addresses. Do you mean that accessing
> > 0xff000040 or 0xff000048 will result in a bus-level exception for a
> > missing register and just 0xff000044 is actually valid for access,
> > or is it just the only thing that is documented?
> 
> For PRR, all other registers in the page read as all zeroes on all SoCs that
> have it. So it really is a lone register.

Ok.

> >> On SH-Mobile/R-Mobile, CCCR may be part of the HPB/APB register block, which
> >> we further don't touch at all.
> >> On R-Car Gen2, it's not documented, but does exist.
> >
> > This is where the family names would come in handy ;-) I now have
> > no idea which chip(s) you are referring to.
> 
> SH/R-Mobile are r8a7740, r8a73a4, sh73a0.
> R-Car Gen2 are r8a779[0-4].
> 
> > If you know the name of the register block, just put it into DT with
> > that name. The driver can trivially add the right offset.
> 
> CCCR is different. The amount of registers that read as non-zero depends a lot
> on the actual SoC.
> 
> HPB/APB is gonna need real DT bindings, which needs some more investigation.
> Hence if you don't mind, I'd like to postpone that part, which only affects
> the older SoCs. And I'll drop the "renesas,cccr" binding.
> 
> For now, having revision detection for R-Car Gen3 (r8a779[56]) using PRR is
> most urgent, as several drivers (e.g. HDMI, Ethernet, clocks, pinctrl) are
> waiting for this support. So I'd like to have that dependency in v4.10.

Ok, sounds good.

> >> There is no SoC part number in the "renesas,prr" and "renesas,cccr" nodes.
> >> Hence I always need to look at the root nodes.
> >
> > Not sure what that would protect you from. Could you have a renesas,cccr
> 
> Looks like you forgot to finish your sentence?

Yes, and I forgot what I was going to say there now. It's probably covered
by what we discussed above.

	Arnd

[PATCH v2 5/7] ARM: shmobile: Document DT bindings for CCCR and PRR

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:30:53PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Add device tree binding documentation for the Common Chip Code Register
> and Product Register, which provide SoC product and revision
> information.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> ---
> v2:
>   - New.
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>