From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] spmi: add generic SPMI controller binding documentation Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:32:54 -0600 Message-ID: <521E4256.4070805@wwwdotorg.org> References: <5217DB0C.7000101@wwwdotorg.org> <20130827170120.GR4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> <521D2047.8030300@wwwdotorg.org> <20130828180025.GA808@joshc.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130828180025.GA808@joshc.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Cartwright Cc: Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sagar Dharia , Gilad Avidov , Michael Bohan , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Wolfram Sang List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 08/28/2013 12:00 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 03:55:19PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote: >> ... >>> If we want to ensure for the generic bindings that we are fulling >>> characterizing/describing the SPMI bus, then we'll additionally need to >>> tackle an additional identified assumption: >>> >>> 4. One master per SPMI bus. (The SPMI spec allows for up to 4 >>> masters) >>> >>> On the Snapdragon 800 series, there exists only one software-controlled >>> master, but it is conceivably possible to have a setup with two >>> software-controlled masters on the same SPMI bus. >>> >>> This necessarily means that the description of the slaves and the >>> masters will need to be decoupled; I'm imagining a generic binding >>> supporting multiple masters would look something like this: >> >> Is there a need to represent the other masters in the DT? Sure they're >> there in HW, but if there's no specific way for the >> CPU-to-which-the-DT-applies to actually interact with those other >> masters (except perhaps by experiencing some arbitration delays) then >> presumably there's no need to represent the other masters in DT? > > My example is contrived, but there is nothing in the SPMI spec > preventing two masters from being controllable by the same > CPU-to-which-the-DT-applies, sharing the same underlying bus. That's true. > I would also expect this configuration to be uncommon, I'm checking with > some folks with more SPMI experience to make sure they agree. > > Interestingly, i2c as far as I can tell has also made the same > assumption. There doesn't appear to be any way to express a > multi-master i2c setup where both masters are controlled by the same OS. Yes, I think it's a fair assumption that we don't need to represent that; I immediately thought about the I2C counter-example after reading your first paragraph.