Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] ARM: dts: Move all Cygnus peripherals into soc bus

[Ray Jui <rjui-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On 9/23/2015 2:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 18 September 2015 15:11:27 Ray Jui wrote:
>> On 9/18/2015 2:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 18 September 2015 14:24:10 Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> +       soc {
>>>> +               compatible = "simple-bus";
>>>> +               ranges;
>>>> +               #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> +               #size-cells = <1>;
>>>
>>>> +               pinctrl: pinctrl@0301d0c8 {
>>>>
>>>
>>> Similarly to the core bus, this seems to have address ranges 0x03xxxxxx and
>>> 0x18xxxxxx on it, so put those into the ranges.
>>>
>>
>> Okay we have an issue here. For whatever reason, the Cygnus ASIC team
>> decided to put registers for the same block in random locations. We see
>> similar issues in all of our other iProc based SoCs. We have
>> communicated this to our ASIC team, and hopefully they can revert the
>> trend for the next SoC.
>>
>> For example, the gpio_ccm has registers in the following regions:
>>
>> gpio_ccm: gpio@1800a000 {
>>     compatible = "brcm,cygnus-ccm-gpio";
>>     reg = <0x1800a000 0x50>,
>>           <0x0301d164 0x20>;
>>
>> NAND is worse, it has registers in 3 different separate regions:
>>
>> nand: nand@18046000 {
>>     compatible = "brcm,nand-iproc", "brcm,brcmnand-v6.1",
>>                  "brcm,brcmnand";
>>     reg = <0x18046000 0x600>, <0xf8105408 0x600>,
>>           <0x18046f00 0x20>;
>>
>> As you can see, this makes it impossible to define a proper address
>> range for the bus; therefore, I'll have to keep the ranges undefined and
>> a simple 1:1 mapping under this bus.
> 
> Hmm, you could still try to list them as non-overlapping with other
> buses on the root node like
> 
> 	ranges = <0x03000000 0x03000000 0x01000000>,
> 		 <0x18000000 0x18000000 0x01000000>,
> 		 <0xf8000000 0xf8000000 0x01000000>;
> 
> which clarifies how the bus is wired up in hardware.
> 
> Alternatively, you could make a more elaborate mapping, if there
> are in fact multiple hardware ranges, like
> 
> 	#address-cells = <2>; # space:offset
> 	ranges = <1 0  0x03000000 0x01000000>,
> 		 <2 0  0x18000000 0x01000000>,
> 		 <3 0  0xf8000000 0x01000000>;
> 
> It really depends on what the hardware designers were thinking. If
> the AXI bus actually decodes the entire 32-bit address range and devices
> are just located at random addresses in there, your current scheme is
> probably closest to reality.
> 

I see. Let me talk to our ASIC team to get this clarified. If in the end
the AXI bus decodes the entire 32-bit address space, no change will be
made. Otherwise, I'll submit another patch to list the actual address
space that the AXI bus decodes.

Thanks for the review. It's very helpful!

Ray
--
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