Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mtd: rawnand: Add NAND controller support on Intel LGM SoC

Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX
2020-05-04T09:17:14Z

Hi Boris,

On 4/5/2020 4:58 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 16:50:08 +0800
> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>> On 4/5/2020 3:17 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 May 2020 15:15:08 +0800
>>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
>>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much for the prompt review and suggestions...
>>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2020 3:08 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:02:35 +0800
>>>>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
>>>>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/4/2020 9:01 pm, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 14:36:00 +0200
>>>>>>> Boris Brezillon<boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:07:03 +0800
>>>>>>>> "Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX"
>>>>>>>> <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is, is it the same value we have in nand_pa or it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> different?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Different address which is 0xE1400000 NAND_BASE_PHY address.
>>>>>>>>>> Then why didn't you tell me they didn't match when I suggested to pass
>>>>>>>>> sorry, because you keep asking nand_pa after that only I realized that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> nand_pa? So now the question is, what does this address represent?
>>>>>>>>> EBU-MODULE
>>>>>>>>> _________ _______________________
>>>>>>>>> | | | |NAND CTRL |
>>>>>>>>> | FPI BUS |==>| CS0(0x174) | 0xE100 ( 0xE14/0xE1C) NAND_PHY_BASE
>>>>>>>>> |_________| |_CS1(0x17C)_|__________ |
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EBU_CONRTROLLER_BASE : 0xE0F0_0000
>>>>>>>>> HSNAND_BASE: 0xE100_0000
>>>>>>>>> NAND_CS0: 0xE140_0000
>>>>>>>>> NAND_CS1: 0xE1C0_0000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MEM_REGION_BASE_CS0: 0x17400 (internal to ebu controller )
>>>>>>>>> MEM_REGION_BASE_CS1: 0x17C00
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hm, I wonder if we shouldn't use a 'ranges' property to describe this
>>>>>>>> address translation. Something like
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ebu@xxx {
>>>>>>>> ranges = <0x17400000 0xe1400000 0x1000>,
>>>>>>>> <0x17c00000 0xe1c00000 0x1000>;
>>>>>>>> reg = <0x17400000>, <0x17c00000>;
>>>>>>>> reg-names = "cs-0", "cs-1";
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The translated address (0xE1X00000) will be available in res->start,
>>>>>>>> and the non-translated one (0x17X00000) can be retrieved with
>>>>>>>> of_get_address(). All you'd have to do then would be calculate the
>>>>>>>> mask:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mask = (translated_address & original_address) >> 22;
>>>>>>>> num_comp_bits = fls(mask);
>>>>>>>> WARN_ON(mask != GENMASK(num_comp_bits - 1, 0));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which allows you to properly set the ADDR_SEL() register without
>>>>>>>> relying on some hardcoded values:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> writel(original_address | EBU_ADDR_SEL_REGEN |
>>>>>>>> EBU_ADDR_COMP_BITS(num_comp_bits),
>>>>>>>> ebu_host->ebu + EBU_ADDR_SEL(csid));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's quite important if we want to merge the xway NAND driver with
>>>>>>>> this one.
>>>>>>> Looks like the translation is done at the FPI bus declaration level (see
>>>>>>> [1]). We really need to see the big picture to take a wise decision
>>>>>>> about the bindings. Would you mind pasting your dsti/dts files
>>>>>>> somewhere? It feels like the NAND controller is a sub-part of a more
>>>>>>> generic 'memory' controller, in which case the NAND controller should be
>>>>>>> declared as a child of this generic memory bus (called localbus in [1],
>>>>>>> but maybe EBU is more accurate).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]https://github.com/xieyaxiongfly/Atheros_CSI_tool_OpenWRT_src/blob/master/target/linux/lantiq/files-4.14/arch/mips/boot/dts/vr9.dtsi#L162
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ebu_nand: ebu_nand@e0f00000 {
>>>>>> compatible = "intel,lgm-ebu-nand";
>>>>>> reg = <0xe0f00000 0x100
>>>>>> 0xe1000000 0x300
>>>>>> 0xe1400000 0x80000
>>>>>> 0xe1c00000 0x10000>;
>>>>>> reg-names = "ebunand", "hsnand", "nand_cs0", nand_cs1";
>>>>>> dmas = <&dma0 8>, <&dma0 9>;
>>>>>> dma-names = "ebu_rx", "ebu_tx";
>>>>>> clocks = <&cgu0 LGM_GCLK_EBU>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> &ebu_nand {
>>>>>> status = "disabled";
>>>>>> nand,cs = <1>;
>>>>>> nand-ecc-mode = "hw";
>>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&ebu_nand_base &ebu_cs1>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. If I understand the SoC topology correctly it should actually be
>>>>> something like that:
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>> ...
>>>>> fpi@xxxxx {
>>>>> compatible = "intel,lgm-fpi", "simple-bus";
>>>>>
>>>>> /* You might have other ranges to define here */
>>>>> ranges = <0x16000000 0xe0000000 0x1000000>;
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, we do not have fpi tree node in our dts/dtsi file instead we have
>>>> the below one.. , that also not included the major peripherals
>>>> controllers node.
>>>> /* Special part from CPU core */
>>>> core: core {
>>>> compatible = "intel,core", "simple-bus";
>>>> #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> #size-cells = <1>;
>>>> ranges;
>>>>
>>>> ioapic1: interrupt-controller@fec00000 {
>>>> #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>>> #address-cells = <0>;
>>>> compatible = "intel,ce4100-ioapic";
>>>> interrupt-controller;
>>>> reg = <0xfec00000 0x1000>;
>>>> nr_entries = <256>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> hpet: timer@fed00000 {
>>>> compatible = "intel,ce4100-hpet";
>>>> reg = <0xfed00000 0x400>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> lapic0: interrupt-controller@fee00000 {
>>>> compatible = "intel,ce4100-lapic";
>>>> reg = <0xfee00000 0x1000>;
>>>> no_pic_mode;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> other than this, rest all in independent node .
>>>
>>> But you do have an FPI bus, right? If this is the case it should be
>>> represented.
>>
>> Yes, FPI bus is slave to core which connects all the peripherals.
>>
>> Or is the "intel,core" bus actually the FPI bus that you
>>> named differently?
>>
>> FPI slave bus connects to core bus by OCP bridge, so here it is named
>> FPI bus, but SW perspective didn't have root tree which has all
>> sub-nodes, as of now each peripheral has its own node.
>
> Duh, not sure that's a good idea to hide that, especially since you
> have to describe the address translation that happens when crossing the
> FPI bus (the ranges thing I mentioned previously).

Thanks Boris, Sure I will do as you have suggested.

can I proceed to send next patch-set.

Regards
Vadivel