From: swarren@wwwdotorg•org (Stephen Warren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] spmi: add generic SPMI controller binding documentation
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:55:19 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <521D2047.8030300@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130827170120.GR4035@joshc.qualcomm.com>
On 08/27/2013 11:01 AM, Josh Cartwright wrote:
...
> If we want to ensure for the generic bindings that we are fulling
> characterizing/describing the SPMI bus, then we'll additionally need to
> tackle an additional identified assumption:
>
> 4. One master per SPMI bus. (The SPMI spec allows for up to 4
> masters)
>
> On the Snapdragon 800 series, there exists only one software-controlled
> master, but it is conceivably possible to have a setup with two
> software-controlled masters on the same SPMI bus.
>
> This necessarily means that the description of the slaves and the
> masters will need to be decoupled; I'm imagining a generic binding
> supporting multiple masters would look something like this:
Is there a need to represent the other masters in the DT? Sure they're
there in HW, but if there's no specific way for the
CPU-to-which-the-DT-applies to actually interact with those other
masters (except perhaps by experiencing some arbitration delays) then
presumably there's no need to represent the other masters in DT?
> master0: master at 0 {
> compatible = "...";
> #spmi-master-cells = <0>;
> spmi-mid = <0>;
>
> ...
> };
>
> master2: master at 2 {
> compatible = "...";
> #spmi-master-cells = <0>;
> spmi-mid = <2>;
>
> ...
> };
>
> spmi_bus {
> compatible = "...";
>
> spmi-masters = <&master0 &master2>;
>
> foo at 0 {
> compatible = "...";
> reg = <0 ...>;
> };
>
> foo at 8 {
> compatible = "...";
> reg = <8 ...>;
> };
> };
>
> (This will also necessitate a change in the underlying SPMI driver
> model, in the current implementation, a SPMI master 'owns' a particular
> device. This is not a valid assumption to make.)
>
> Would this property-containing-phandle-vector be considered the
> canonical way of representing nodes with multiple parents in the device
> tree?
I don't think I've seen anything like this before, although that
in-and-of-itself doesn't make it wrong.
Another approach might be to encode master-vs-slave into a cell in the
reg property? Something like:
cell 0 - address type (0: master, 1: unique ID, 2: group ID, ...)
cell 1 - address value
I haven't thought much about that; perhaps there are disadvantages doing
that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-27 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-22 20:18 [PATCH RFC v2 0/3] Add support for the System Power Management Interface (SPMI) Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 4/5] spmi: Add MSM PMIC Arbiter SPMI controller Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] spmi: document the PMIC arbiter SPMI bindings Josh Cartwright
2013-08-23 21:55 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/5] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 23:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-23 16:06 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-09-09 15:52 ` Mark Brown
2013-09-09 16:56 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 19:59 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/5] spmi: add generic SPMI controller binding documentation Josh Cartwright
2013-08-23 21:58 ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-27 17:01 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-27 21:55 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2013-08-28 18:00 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-28 18:32 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-06 6:11 ` Bjorn Andersson
2013-10-07 21:17 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-22 22:57 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] of: Add empty for_each_available_child_of_node() macro definition Josh Cartwright
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=521D2047.8030300@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox