Re: [PATCH v1 12/30] dt-bindings: reset: Add starfive,jh7110-reset bindings

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-10-12T13:36:05Z

On 12/10/2022 09:16, Hal Feng wrote:
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - starfive,jh7110-reset
>>>>
>>>> 'reg' needed? Is this a sub-block of something else?
>>>
>>> Yes, the reset node is a child node of the syscon node, see patch 27 for detail.
>>> You might not see the complete patches at that time due to technical issue of
>>> our smtp email server. Again, I feel so sorry about that.
>>>
>>> syscrg: syscrg@13020000 {
>>> compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>> reg = <0x0 0x13020000 0x0 0x10000>;
>>>
>>> syscrg_clk: clock-controller@13020000 {
>>> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-clkgen-sys";
>>> clocks = <&osc>, <&gmac1_rmii_refin>,
>>> <&gmac1_rgmii_rxin>,
>>> <&i2stx_bclk_ext>, <&i2stx_lrck_ext>,
>>> <&i2srx_bclk_ext>, <&i2srx_lrck_ext>,
>>> <&tdm_ext>, <&mclk_ext>;
>>> clock-names = "osc", "gmac1_rmii_refin",
>>> "gmac1_rgmii_rxin",
>>> "i2stx_bclk_ext", "i2stx_lrck_ext",
>>> "i2srx_bclk_ext", "i2srx_lrck_ext",
>>> "tdm_ext", "mclk_ext";
>>> #clock-cells = <1>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> syscrg_rst: reset-controller@13020000 {
>>> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-reset";
>>> #reset-cells = <1>;
>>
>> So the answer to the "reg needed?" is what? You have unit address but no
>> reg, so this is not correct.
>
> Not needed in the reset-controller node, but needed in its parent node.

We do not talk about parent node. Rob's question was in this bindings.
Is this document a binding for the parent node or for this node?

> I am sorry
> for missing description to point it out in the bindings. I will rewrite all bindings
> for the next version. Unit address here should be deleted.
>
>>
>>> starfive,assert-offset = <0x2F8>;
>>> starfive,status-offset= <0x308>;
>>> starfive,nr-resets = <JH7110_SYSRST_END>;
>>> };
>>> };
>>>
>>> In this case, we get the memory mapped space through the parent node with syscon
>>> APIs. You can see patch 13 for detail.
>>>
>>> static int reset_starfive_register(struct platform_device *pdev, const u32 *asserted)
>>> {
>>
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + "#reset-cells":
>>>>> + const: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> + starfive,assert-offset:
>>>>> + description: Offset of the first ASSERT register
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>>> +
>>>>> + starfive,status-offset:
>>>>> + description: Offset of the first STATUS register
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
>>>>
>>>> These can't be implied from the compatible string?
>
> Definitely can. We do this is for simplifying the reset driver.

The role of the bindings is not to simplify some specific driver in some
specific OS...

> Otherwise, we may need to define more compatibles because there
> are multiple reset blocks in JH7110. Another case can be found at
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/altr,rst-mgr.yaml

And why is this a problem? You have different hardware, so should have
different compatibles. Otherwise we would have a compatible
"all,everything" and use it in all possible devices.

>>> These two properties are the key differences among different reset controllers.
>>
>> Different as in different compatibles? Please answer the questions..>
>>> There are five memory regions for clock and reset in StarFive JH7110 SoC. They
>>> are "syscrg", "aoncrg", "stgcrg", "ispcrg" and "voutcrg". Each memory region
>>> has different reset ASSERT/STATUS register offset and different number of reset
>>> signals.
>>
>> Then these are not exactly the same devices, so using one compatible for
>> them does not look correct.
>
> One compatible can just be matched by one device? I think this is what
> confuses me.

I don't understand the question.

>
> Best regards,
> Hal
>

Trim the replies - no need to quote everything (entire message following
last reply/quote).

Best regards,
Krzysztof