From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Emil Medve Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt/bindings: Introduce the FSL QorIQ DPAA BMan Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:30:08 -0500 Message-ID: <5452ADE0.1030709@Freescale.com> References: <1413986972-621-1-git-send-email-Emilian.Medve@Freescale.com> <1414519738.23458.84.camel__4795.38602890006$1414521743$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <54515ECB.70404@Freescale.com> <1414620996.23458.141.camel__29590.7804662876$1414621051$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <5451BF49.6050106@Freescale.com> <1414680683.23458.148.camel__4514.07629666409$1414680744$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <54526521.1090601@Freescale.com> <1414686590.23458.151.camel__44619.4786033176$1414686664$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <54526B13.3010704@Freescale.com> <1414704371.23458.157.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1414704371.23458.157.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Scott Wood Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, Geoff.Thorpe@Freescale.com, corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Kumar Gala List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello Scott, On 10/30/2014 04:26 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:45 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 10/30/2014 11:29 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 11:19 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> Hello Scott, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/30/2014 09:51 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 23:32 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>>>> Hello Scott, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/29/2014 05:16 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 16:40 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello Scott, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/28/2014 01:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 09:36 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Emil Medve wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The Buffer Manager is part of the Data-Path Acceleration Ar= chitecture (DPAA). >>>>>>>>>>> BMan supports hardware allocation and deallocation of buffe= rs belonging to >>>>>>>>>>> pools originally created by software with configurable depl= etion thresholds. >>>>>>>>>>> This binding covers the CCSR space programming model >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Emil Medve >>>>>>>>>>> Change-Id: I3ec479bfb3c91951e96902f091f5d7d2adbef3b2 >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/bman.txt | 98 +++= +++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerp= c/fsl/bman.txt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Should these really be in bindings/powerpc/fsl, aren=E2=80=99= t you guys using this on ARM SoCs as well? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The hardware on the ARM SoCs is different enough that I'm not= sure the >>>>>>>>> same binding will cover it. That said, putting things under = >>>>>>>>> should be a last resort if nowhere else fits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OTC started ported the driver to the the ARM SoC and the feedb= ack has >>>>>>>> been that the driver needed minimal changes. The IOMMU has bee= n the only >>>>>>>> area of concern, and a small change to the binding has been su= ggested >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we need something in the binding to indicate device endianne= ss? >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, I didn't have enough exposure to the ARM SoC so I can= 't >>>>>> answer that >>>>>> >>>>>>> If this binding is going to continue to be relevant to future D= PAA >>>>>>> generations, I think we really ought to deal with the possibili= ty that >>>>>>> there is more than one datapath instance >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm unsure how relevant this will be going forward. In LS2 B/QMa= n is >>>>>> abstracted/hidden away behind the MC (firmware). >>>>> >>>>> This is why I was wondering whether the binding would be at all t= he >>>>> same... >>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't over-engineer this without a clear picture of what m= ultiple >>>>>> data-paths per SoC even means at this point >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it's over-engineering. Assuming only one instance = of >>>>> something is generally sloppy engineering. Linux doesn't need to >>>>> actually pay attention to it until and unless it becomes necessar= y, but >>>>> it's good to have the information in the device tree up front. >>>> >>>> I asked around and the "multiple data-path SoC" seems to be at thi= s >>>> point a speculation. It seems unclear how would it work, what >>>> requirements/problems it would address/solve, what programming int= erface >>>> it would have. I'm not sure what do you suggest we do >>>> >>>> In order to reduce the sloppiness of this binding. I'll add a >>>> memory-region phandle to connect each B/QMan node to their >>>> reserved-memory node >>> >>> Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. There should a= lso >>> be a connection from the portals to the relevant bqman node >> >> Nothing in the current programing model requires a portal to know it= s >> B/QMan "parent". Should I add a phandle of sorts anyway? >=20 > Well, you at least have the requirement to initialize the qbman paren= t > before using its portals, and you need to use the portals that go wit= h > the qbman instances that are connected to the device you want to > access... >=20 >>> So there's no hardware connection between the bman and qman themsel= ves? >> >> Not a single one >=20 > OK. Please keep in mind that I haven't worked with this stuff as > closely as you have. :-) Huh? What do you mean? Cheers,