Re: ARC dw-mshc binding compat string

Marek Vasut
2016-03-28T12:52:53Z

On 03/28/2016 02:43 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 03/28/2016 06:37 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>>> Hi Marek, Vladimir,
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2016-03-26 at 21:24 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 03/26/2016 09:12 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26.03.2016 21:52, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/26/2016 07:16 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26.03.2016 20:10, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03/26/2016 06:52 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 26.03.2016 19:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/26/2016 06:26 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 26.03.2016 12:14, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed that arch/arc/boot/dts/axs10x_mb.dtsi uses "altr," prefix in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the DT compatible string:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mmc@0x15000 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible = "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc";
>>>>>>>>>>>> reg = < 0x15000 0x400 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> num-slots = < 1 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> fifo-depth = < 16 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> card-detect-delay = < 200 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> clocks = <&apbclk>, <&mmcclk>;
>>>>>>>>>>>> clock-names = "biu", "ciu";
>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupts = < 7 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> bus-width = < 4 >;
>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this is OK, since ARC is unrelated to Altera, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> what the "altr," prefix stands for. I think the socfpga-dw-mshc shim
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be extended with another compatibility string, something like
>>>>>>>>>>>> "snps,arc-dw-mshc" and the axs10x_mb.dtsi should be adjusted
>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. What do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is "snps,dw-mshc" described in
>>>>>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/synopsys-dw-mshc.txt and supported by
>>>>>>>>>>> dw_mmc host controller driver.
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, that's even better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> btw what do you think of using altr, prefix on non-altera system, that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem ok, right ?
>>>>>>>>> according to ePAPR the prefix should represent a device (IP block here
>>>>>>>>> I believe) manufacturer, so it should be okay to use "altr" prefix on
>>>>>>>>> non-Altera system, if Altera provides another hardware vendor with
>>>>>>>>> some own IP block.
>>>>>>>> In this case, it's Synopsys who provides the SD/MMC/MS core to other
>>>>>>>> chip makers (Altera etc).
>>>>>>> Correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, I would rather prefer to see "snps,dw-mshc" prefix on description
>>>>>>>>> of an MMC controller found on SoCFPGA series, "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc" seems
>>>>>>>>> to be redundant.
>>
>> Yes..it's redundant..i should be combined to "snps,dw-mshc".
>
> socfpga is done correctly, IMO.
>
>>>>>>>> According to drivers/mmc/host/dw_mmc-pltfm.c , the Altera SoCFPGA one
>>>>>>>> "altr,socfpga-dw-mshc" and also Imagination Technology Pistacio one
>>>>>>>> "img,pistachio-dw-mshc" need specialty bit (SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG),
>>>>>>>> while the stock one "snps,dw-mshc" does not. I am not sure if the ARC
>>>>>>>> one needs it as well, but most likely yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if that bit is needed on some particular version of the DWMMC
>>>>>>>> core. In that case, should we have "snps,dw-mshc" and "snps,dw-mshc-vN"
>>>>>>>> binding ? Or should we use DT property to discern the need for this bit ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the most common way to take into account peculiarities, add
>>>>>>> a property and handle it from the driver.
>>>>>> And by "that" you mean which of those two I listed , the
>>>>>> "snps,dw-mshc-vN" or adding new DT prop ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I meant to add a new property, not a new compatible, but that's just
>>>>> my experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me say it __might__ happen that a particular change you need is
>>>>> specific to a particular version of the DWMMC IP (query Synopsys
>>>>> by the way), but more probably it might be e.g. the same IP version with
>>>>> a different reduced or extended configuration or a minor fix/improvement
>>>>> to the IP block without resulting version number bump.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example I don't remember that errata fixes in IP blocks result in
>>>>> a new compatible, instead there are quite common optional "quirk"
>>>>> properties for broken IPs -- e.g. check bindings/usb/dwc3.txt :)
>>>> Right, this very much matches how I see it as well. Thanks for confirming.
>>>>
>>>> Alexey, can you tell us if the requirement for setting
>>>> SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG came with some new revision of the core or
>>>> disappeared with some revision OR if this is some configuration
>>>> option of the core during synthesis ?
>>>
>>> Sorry for not following that discussion during my weekend but I'll try
>>> to address all questions now.
>>
>> SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG didn't come with new revision..It's using continuously.
>> But it's difficult to use the generic feature..because it's considered the below things.
>>
>> If Card is SDR50/SDR104/DDR50 mode..
>> 1) and phase shift of cclk_in_drv is 0 then SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG bit is set to 0,
>> 2) and phase shift of cclk_in_drv > 0 then SDMMC_CMD_USE_HOLD_REG bit is set to 1,
>> If Card is SDR12/SDR25 mode, then this bit is set to 1.
>>
>> We need to check phase shift scheme..but as i knew, each SoC have been implemented differently for phase shift.
>> (Phase shift have dependency to SoC.)
>>
>> And it have to check HCON register..there is IMPLEMENT_HOLD_REG(bit[22]).
>> (It described whether IP have hold register or not)
>>
>> I didn't read this thread entirely.
>> I'm not sure what you have discussed..but my understanding is right..i recommend to use "snps,dw-mshc" for ARC compat string.
>> Otherwise it need to add "dw_mmc-<SoC>.c". dw_mmc-pltfm.c should provide the basic dw-mmc controller functionality.
>
> You should use "snps,dw-mshc", but there should also be an SoC
> specific compatible string. There are always integration differences
> and even using just versions of IP blocks is not specific enough. This
> should not require another driver file.

This is exactly what I wanted to learn in this thread, thank you!
I knew I heard this argument somewhere already, but now I have it
confirmed that adding at least one SoC-specific compat is the way
to do it.

> Rob
>

--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut