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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6D3C43441 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D1720870 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:31:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 98D1720870 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bootlin.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731527AbeKTI5H (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 03:57:07 -0500 Received: from mail.bootlin.com ([62.4.15.54]:42219 "EHLO mail.bootlin.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728650AbeKTI5H (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 03:57:07 -0500 Received: by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 3DB862074F; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:31:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from bbrezillon (unknown [91.160.177.164]) by mail.bootlin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4257206D8; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:31:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:31:14 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Marek Vasut Cc: Mason Yang , broonie@kernel.org, tpiepho@impinj.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Simon Horman , juliensu@mxic.com.tw, Geert Uytterhoeven , zhengxunli@mxic.com.tw Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-binding: spi: Document Renesas R-Car RPC controller bindings Message-ID: <20181119233114.3c5075e7@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <90f42104-a6bd-54e7-959c-ebb906c6019a@gmail.com> References: <1542621690-10229-1-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <1542621690-10229-3-git-send-email-masonccyang@mxic.com.tw> <629a5d6f-5c13-9b24-1c21-461d09f1aa8a@gmail.com> <20181119151009.490413d9@bbrezillon> <20181119154338.2dfa7a5a@bbrezillon> <4c0683d3-fe9d-5a10-6f5c-4774024cb12a@gmail.com> <20181119162127.71d0665d@bbrezillon> <3f791a3c-4a2e-5d43-1026-e1e7b879b562@gmail.com> <20181119231954.333699f4@bbrezillon> <9e217c7c-6626-d683-2d99-0b7571043b3b@gmail.com> <20181119232517.49b39e25@bbrezillon> <90f42104-a6bd-54e7-959c-ebb906c6019a@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:29:00 +0100 Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/19/2018 11:25 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:22:45 +0100 > > Marek Vasut wrote: > > > >> On 11/19/2018 11:19 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:11:31 +0100 > >>> Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 11/19/2018 04:21 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:12:41 +0100 > >>>>> Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 11/19/2018 03:43 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:14:07 +0100 > >>>>>>> Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 11/19/2018 03:10 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:49:31 +0100 > >>>>>>>>> Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2018 11:01 AM, Mason Yang wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Document the bindings used by the Renesas R-Car D3 RPC controller. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mason Yang > >>>>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 > >>>>>>>>>>> index 0000000..8286cc8 > >>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-renesas-rpc.txt > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > >>>>>>>>>>> +Renesas R-Car D3 RPC controller Device Tree Bindings > >>>>>>>>>>> +---------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>>>>> +Required properties: > >>>>>>>>>>> +- compatible: should be "renesas,rpc-r8a77995" > >>>>>>>>>>> +- #address-cells: should be 1 > >>>>>>>>>>> +- #size-cells: should be 0 > >>>>>>>>>>> +- reg: should contain 2 entries, one for the registers and one for the direct > >>>>>>>>>>> + mapping area > >>>>>>>>>>> +- reg-names: should contain "rpc_regs" and "dirmap" > >>>>>>>>>>> +- interrupts: interrupt line connected to the RPC SPI controller > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Do you also plan to support the RPC HF mode ? And if so, how would that > >>>>>>>>>> look in the bindings ? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not sure this approach is still accepted, but that's how we solved the > >>>>>>>>> problem for the flexcom block [1]. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.20-rc3/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-flexcom.txt > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That looks pretty horrible. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In U-Boot we check whether the device hanging under the controller node > >>>>>>>> is JEDEC SPI flash or CFI flash and based on that decide what the config > >>>>>>>> of the controller should be (SPI or HF). Not sure that's much better,but > >>>>>>>> at least it doesn't need extra nodes which do not really represent any > >>>>>>>> kind of real hardware. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The subnodes are not needed, you can just have a property that tells in > >>>>>>> which mode the controller is supposed to operate, and the MFD would > >>>>>>> create a sub-device that points to the same device_node. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do you even need a dedicated property ? I think you can decide purely on > >>>>>> what node is hanging under the controller (jedec spi nor or cfi nor). > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, that could work if they have well-known compatibles. As soon as > >>>>> people start using flash-specific compats (like some people do for > >>>>> their SPI NORs) it becomes a maintenance burden. > >>>> > >>>> Which, on this controller, is very likely never gonna happen. Once it > >>>> does , we can add a custom property. > >>>> > >>>>>>> Or we can have > >>>>>>> a single driver that decides what to declare (a spi_controller or flash > >>>>>>> controller), but you'd still have to decide where to place this > >>>>>>> driver... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd definitely prefer a single driver. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Where would you put this driver? I really don't like the idea of having > >>>>> MTD drivers spread over the tree. Don't know what's Mark's opinion on > >>>>> this matter. > >>>> > >>>> Well, it's both CFI (hyperflash) and SF (well, SPI flash) controller, so > >>>> where would this go ? > >>>> > >>> > >>> The spi-mem layer is in drivers/spi/ so it could go in drivers/spi/ > >>> (spi-mem controller) or drivers/mtd/ (CFI controller). > >> > >> drivers/mtd is probably a better option, since it's not a generic SPI > >> controller. > >> > > > > No, spi-mem controller drivers should go in drivers/spi/ even if they > > don't implement the generic SPI interface (it's allowed to only > > implement the spi_mem interface). > > Except this is not only SPI MEM controller, this is also hyperflash > (that is, CFI) controller. It can drive both types of chips. Thus , I > think it fits better in drivers/mtd/ . > Okay, then I guess we need an ack from Mark on that.