From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA392C433F5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 07:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1351241AbiELHyJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2022 03:54:09 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49508 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1351244AbiELHyI (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2022 03:54:08 -0400 Received: from mail-ej1-x631.google.com (mail-ej1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F199049273 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 00:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ej1-x631.google.com with SMTP id dk23so8510103ejb.8 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 00:54:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xHJnnT01z1m5/aS07o3xcwpyjm9ng8j7p+h8cghz0mg=; b=A/SBKtUr3KfywtKWmieS20zAHGuZFnDIpJbiOl8aFAoL4TK0+DjjJ2fxYk1rGmB6ZK ub1rbkQft+iCWKy4ygN/kwmCKlgGIp5Ks4CVAzNf6gtgDd7Ih4oRrpeSlVnqPsvRLO0/ Uy24pj8IOZ4lIMr1FQzTcBQJtndvDBSpYU1bvfmbNZxpFFC3/gGwIquh1qGTgEf8CQtj duWUm4a2OBbc8pPMC5ViPPghhWvDNAr1FkMoO5+yTnCjzbD/nRv2cKEGR8OBfm0Bf0kh M3op9yni3ODEvrTX14yYbJQjoyy7G0FFHNakiO2K9pEkTJjIIHuz3HzfMV0vgVRzpyQn wtFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xHJnnT01z1m5/aS07o3xcwpyjm9ng8j7p+h8cghz0mg=; b=R2VQ0FG0ri/vsQP/eLstWg66v4D280Bu29hzKgrJuHEtyFYDXtQhc9E1ae5vMlvaLh q2yaliFgrAcHvgpgnbO10dNqW/PQge/xdNYxCzUcmUUeJJVsfgBqes5pu7FwgJSccg8N cdASx6zx1kAyVRywkvsYWC/Svsp97qAi5rC78uS4Nnktl3uCQftrXEU74h+bV93ESWKj h6nUHEzCMcDy7ZYlCZgJJqpODJmcjJS1KlW2JXIZ9dQfN8hXjOBgGORhVxtwFY4o17b6 OgrwwFv+ZpFDKfAQLSZpHNsvnq+VQ+ddtD6gmEyfYL98UD+3PvIowOe7OkGiFGPEdPzV b0QA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dcaHyoeR/TVORw7z7ZoHA0N2V+5BI24x6FWFdVzHdULSUK7dB XvTzzpOikMVOn+t45/Ua56910g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoSxUbbatzMqng37xCHJror9sIbQPy+9nCPXyfbJ+QGbiKsRtJNf0mmfRO7Uf5x69zPreAnw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f26:b0:6f4:dc59:3cfe with SMTP id hq38-20020a1709073f2600b006f4dc593cfemr28828663ejc.528.1652342045468; Thu, 12 May 2022 00:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.156] (xdsl-188-155-176-92.adslplus.ch. [188.155.176.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j29-20020a508a9d000000b0042617ba63d1sm2205862edj.91.2022.05.12.00.54.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 May 2022 00:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 09:54:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: microchip-otpc: document Microchip OTPC Content-Language: en-US To: Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220510094457.4070764-1-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> <20220510094457.4070764-2-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> <75ce6291-77c7-c932-e8bb-a8bbae02431d@linaro.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 12/05/2022 09:17, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: >> >>> + >>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_NVMEM_MICROCHIP_OTPC_H >>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_NVMEM_MICROCHIP_OTPC_H >>> + >>> +/* >>> + * Need to have it as a multiple of 4 as NVMEM memory is registered with >>> + * stride = 4. >>> + */ >>> +#define OTP_PKT(id) ((id) * 4) >> >> Do I get it correctly - the offset or register address is now part of a >> binding? You write here "id", however you use it as part of "reg", so >> it's confusing. > > I agree that reg should describe the offset in OTP memory and its the > length for a cell. > > However this OTP memory is organized into packets (this is how hardware is > designed), the 1st one being the boot configuration packet, the 2nd one > being temperature calibration data. At the moment Microchip provides only > these 2 packets in OTP memory. Boot configuration packet may vary in length > thus it may change the offset the temperature calibration packet resides > to. If this happen and we use offset based addressing in device trees then > the solution will not work all the time. > > OTP hardware is designed to work with packets. For a packet being in memory > at offset 0x0E as follows: > > offset OTP Memory layout > > . . > . ... . > . . > 0x0E +-----------+ <--- packet X > | header X | > 0x12 +-----------+ > | payload X | > 0x16 | | > | | > 0x1A | | > +-----------+ > . . > . ... . > . . > > requesting from software data at address 0x16 (through OTP control > registers) will return the whole packet starting at offset 0x0E. Same > things happens when requesting data at offset 0x0E, 0x12, 0x1A. > > Thus, as underlying hardware returns to software chunks of 4 bytes though > data registers the driver has been registered with stride = 4. The > OTP_PKT() macro expects packet identifier (starting from 0), multiplies it > by 4 to be able to pass the NVMEM subsystem accordingly, then the driver > which manages a list of the available packets divides this value by 4 and > gets the packet ID and the proper offset in memory for the requested packet ID. > > The intention was to have the OTP_PKT() macro here to be used in device > trees for simpler way of describing different cells in this OTP memory. > Also, using OTP_PKT() abstraction looked to me closer to the reality > (although the computed value is not reflecting this, it is only an > abstraction to be able to pass the NVMEM subsystem). > > Would you prefer to have raw values instead of using this macro? Macro is a nice idea if it can be stable. I understood that length of packets depends on hardware, so this part could be stable. But what about number of packets, so the OTP_PKT_SAMA7G5_TEMP_CALIB_LEN below? You wrote "Boot configuration packet may vary in length", so it could be changed by Microchip? Once this value is stored in the bindings, it is not supposed to change. > > Adapting the subsystem for this kind of devices is also an option if > Srinivas thinks like this. > >> >>> + >>> +/* >>> + * Temperature calibration packet length for SAMA7G5: 1 words header, >>> + * 18 words payload. >>> + */ >>> +#define OTP_PKT_SAMA7G5_TEMP_CALIB_LEN (19 * 4) >> >> Length of some memory region also does not look like job for bindings. > > I added it here to be able to have the same macro in DT and consumer > drivers taking as example iio drivers that uses this approach to describe > IIO channel identifiers. I can remove it and use necessary macros in the > consumer drivers, if it's better this way. Best regards, Krzysztof