Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] Documentation: dt-bindings: Add documents for PECI hwmon client drivers

[Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com>]

On 4/18/2018 7:32 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo
> <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/2018 4:51 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2018 4:22 PM, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2018 11:14 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:32:09AM -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit adds dt-bindings documents for PECI cputemp and dimmtemp
>>>>>> client
>>>>>> drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> +Example:
>>>>>> +    peci-bus@0 {
>>>>>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>>> +        < more properties >
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +        peci-dimmtemp@cpu0 {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> unit-address is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will fix it using the reg value.
>>>>
>>>>> It is a different bus from cputemp? Otherwise, you have conflicting
>>>>> addresses. If that's the case, probably should make it clear by showing
>>>>> different host adapters for each example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could be the same bus with cputemp. Also, client address sharing is
>>>> possible by PECI core if the functionality is different. I mean, cputemp and
>>>> dimmtemp targeting the same client is possible case like this.
>>>> peci-cputemp@30
>>>> peci-dimmtemp@30
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I got your point. Probably, I should change these separate settings
>>> into one like
>>>
>>> peci-client@30 {
>>>       compatible = "intel,peci-client";
>>>       reg = <0x30>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> Then cputemp and dimmtemp drivers could refer the same compatible string.
>>> Will rewrite it.
>>>
>>
>> I've checked it again and realized that it should use function based node
>> name like:
>>
>> peci-cputemp@30
>> peci-dimmtemp@30
>>
>> If it use the same string like 'peci-client@30', the drivers cannot be
>> selectively enabled. The client address sharing way is well handled in PECI
>> core and this way would be better for the future implementations of other
>> PECI functional drivers such as crash dump driver and so on. So I'm going
>> change the unit-address only.
> 
> 2 nodes at the same address is wrong (and soon dtc will warn you on
> this). You have 2 potential options. The first is you need additional
> address information in the DT if these are in fact 2 independent
> devices. This could be something like a function number to use
> something from PCI addressing. From what I found on PECI, it doesn't
> seem to have anything like that. The 2nd option is you have a single
> DT node which registers multiple hwmon devices. DT nodes and drivers
> don't have to be 1-1. Don't design your DT nodes from how you want to
> partition drivers in some OS.
> 
> Rob
> 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm still thinking that it is
possible. Also, I did compile it but dtc doesn't make a warning. Let me
show an another use case which is similar to this case:

In arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed-g5.dtsi
[...]
lpc_host: lpc-host@80 {
         compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-host", "simple-mfd", "syscon";
         reg = <0x80 0x1e0>;
         reg-io-width = <4>;

         #address-cells = <1>;
         #size-cells = <1>;
         ranges = <0x0 0x80 0x1e0>;

         lpc_ctrl: lpc-ctrl@0 {
                 compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-ctrl";
                 reg = <0x0 0x80>;
                 clocks = <&syscon ASPEED_CLK_GATE_LCLK>;
                 status = "disabled";
         };

         lpc_snoop: lpc-snoop@0 {
                 compatible = "aspeed,ast2500-lpc-snoop";
                 reg = <0x0 0x80>;
                 interrupts = <8>;
                 status = "disabled";
         };
}
[...]

This is device tree setting for LPC interface and its child nodes.
LPC interface can be used as a multi-functional interface such as
snoop 80, KCS, SIO and so on. In this use case, lpc-ctrl@0 and
lpc-snoop@0 are sharing their address range from their individual
driver modules and they can be registered quite well through both
static dt or dynamic dtoverlay. PECI is also a multi-functional
interface which is similar to the above case, I think.

Thanks,

Jae