Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] reset: Reset controller driver for Intel LGM SoC

Chuan Hua, Lei
2019-08-28T01:53:51Z

Hi Martin,

On 8/28/2019 5:15 AM, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:23 AM Chuan Hua, Lei
> <chuanhua.lei@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> 1. reset-lantiq.c use index instead of register offset + bit position.
>>>> index reset is good for a small system (< 64). However, it will become very
>>>> difficult to use if you have > 100 reset. So we use register offset +
>>>> bit position
>>> reset-lantiq uses bit bit positions for specifying the reset line.
>>> for example this is from OpenWrt's vr9.dtsi:
>>> reset0: reset-controller@10 {
>>> ...
>>> reg = <0x10 4>, <0x14 4>;
>>> #reset-cells = <2>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> gphy0: gphy@20 {
>>> ...
>>> resets = <&reset0 31 30>, <&reset1 7 7>;
>>> reset-names = "gphy", "gphy2";
>>> };
>>>
>>> in my own words this means:
>>> - all reset0 reset bits are at offset 0x10 (parent is RCU)
>>> - all reset0 status bits are at offset 0x14 (parent is RCU)
>>> - the first reset line uses reset bit 31 and status bit 30
>>> - the second reset line uses reset bit 7 and status bit 7
>>> - there can be multiple reset-controller instances, each taking the
>>> reset and status offsets (OpenWrt's vr9.dtsi specifies the second RCU
>>> reset controller "reset1" with reset offset 0x48 and status offset
>>> 0x24)
>> in reset-lantiq.c, we split each reset request /status pair into one
>> reset controller.
>>
>> Each reset controller handles up to 32 resets. It will create up to 9
>> even more
>> reset controllers in the new SoCs. In reality, there is only one RCU
>> controller for all
>> SoCs. These designs worked but did not follow what hardware implemented.
>>
>> After checking the existing code and referring to other implementation,
>> we decided to
>> use register offset + bit position method. It can support all SoCs with
>> this methods
>> without code change(device tree change only).
> maybe I have a different interpretation of what "RCU" does.
> let me explain it in my own words based on my knowledge about VRX200:
> - in my own words it is a multi function device with the following
> functionality:
> - it contains two reset controllers (reset at 0x10, status 0x14 and
> reset at 0x48, status at 0x24)
> - it contains two USB2 PHYs (PHY registers at 0x18, ANA cfg at 0x38
> and PHY registers at 0x34, ANA cfg at 0x3c)
> - it contains the configuration for the two GPHY IP blocks (at 0x20 and 0x68)
> - it contains endianness configuration registers (for PCI, PCIe, ...)
> - it contains the watchdog boot status (whether the SoC was previously
> reset by the WDT)
> - maybe more, but I don't know anything else about it
In fact, there is only one reset controller for all SoCs even it doesn't
prevent software from virtualizing multiple reset controllers. Reset
control does include some misc stuff which has been moved to chiptop in
new SoCs so that RCU has a clean job.
> we tried our best to document this in
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mips/lantiq/rcu.txt
>
> I'm not sure about the details of the RCU on the LGM SoCs:
> if it contains more than just reset controllers then please let Rob
> Herring (dt-bindings maintainer) know about this.
> we may only have one chance to do it right, if we start with a
> "broken" binding then devices with incompatible bootloaders etc. may
> have already shipped
> (in general: that is why the devicetree maintainers want to have all
> device properties documented in the binding, even if the driver does
> not support all of them yet)

>
>>>> 2. reset-lantiq.c does not support device restart which is part of the
>>>> reset in
>>>> old lantiq SoC. It moved this part into arch/mips/lantiq directory.
>>> it was moved to the .dts instead of the arch code. again from
>>> OpenWrt's vr9.dtsi [0]:
>>> reboot {
>>> compatible = "syscon-reboot";
>>> regmap = <&rcu0>;
>>> offset = <0x10>;
>>> mask = <0xe0000000>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> this sets the reset0 reset bits 31, 30 and 29 at reboot
>> ok. but not sure why we need to reset bit 31 and 29. global softwre
>> reset is bit 30.
> I don't know either. depending on what the LGM SoCs need you can
> change the "mask" property to the value that fits that SoC best
>
> [...]
All SoCs have only one global software reset bit.
>>> - other reset lines only support reset pulses. the _reset function
>>> should be used in this case
>>> - the _reset function should only assert the reset line, then wait
>>> until the hardware automatically de-asserts it (without any further
>>> write)
>> Yes, this is called hardware reset. We can't control reset duration.
>>> is this the same for all, old and new SoCs?
>> New SoCs have removed support for hardware reset after software's feedback.
>>
>> Old SoCs such as VRX200/ARX300 has both software/hardware resets
> nice, it's good to see teamwork between hardware and software teams!
>
> [...]
>>>> 4. Code not optimized and intel internal review not assessed.
>>> insights from you (like the issue with the reset callback) are very
>>> valuable - this shows that we should focus on having one driver.
>>>
>>>> Based on the above findings, I would suggest reset-lantiq.c to move to
>>>> reset-intel-syscon.c
>>> my concern with having two separate drivers is that it will be hard to
>>> migrate from reset-lantiq to the "optimized" reset-intel-syscon
>>> driver.
>>> I don't have access to the datasheets for the any Lantiq/Intel SoC
>>> (VRX200 and even older).
>>> so debugging issues after switching from one driver to another is
>>> tedious because I cannot tell which part of the driver is causing a
>>> problem (it's either "all code from driver A" vs "all code from driver
>>> B", meaning it's hard to narrow it down).
>>> with separate commits/patches that are improving the reset-lantiq
>>> driver I can do git bisect to find the cause of a problem on the older
>>> SoCs (VRX200 for example)
>> Our internal version supports XRX350/XRX500/PRX300(MIPS based) and
>> latest Lighting Mountain(X86 based). Migration to reset-intel-syscon.c
>> should be straight forward.
> what about the _reset callback on the XRX350/XRX500/PRX300 SoCs - do
> they only use level resets (_assert and _deassert) or are some reset
> lines using reset pulses (_reset)?
>
> when we wanted to switch from reset-lantiq.c to reset-intel-syscon.c
> we still had to add support for the _reset callback as this is missing
> in reset-intel-syscon.c currently
Yes. We have reset pulse(assert, then check the reset status).
>
>
> Martin