Subject: [PATCH v8 4/9] mfd: Add binding document for NVIDIA Tegra XUSB

From: [email-masked] (Jon Hunter)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 12:21:30 +0100

On 14/05/15 11:23, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 14/05/15 10:30, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 14/05/15 08:40, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/05/15 15:39, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 May 2015, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add a binding document for the XUSB host complex on NVIDIA Tegra124
>>>>>>>> and later SoCs.  The XUSB host complex includes a mailbox for
>>>>>>>> communication with the XUSB micro-controller and an xHCI host-controller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Pawel Moll <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Ian Campbell <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Kumar Gala <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Samuel Ortiz <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Lee Jones <[email-masked]>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Changes from v7:
>>>>>>>>  - Move non-shared resources into child nodes.
>>>>>>>> New for v7.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  .../bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt          | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 0000000..bc50110
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/nvidia,tegra124-xusb.txt
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
>>>>>>>> +NVIDIA Tegra XUSB host copmlex
>>>>>>>> +==============================
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +The XUSB host complex on Tegra124 and later SoCs contains an xHCI host
>>>>>>>> +controller and a mailbox for communication with the XUSB micro-controller.
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>>>>> +--------------------
>>>>>>>> + - compatible: For Tegra124, must contain "nvidia,tegra124-xusb".
>>>>>>>> +   Otherwise, must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-xusb", "nvidia,tegra124-xusb"'
>>>>>>>> +   where <chip> is tegra132.
>>>>>>>> + - reg: Must contain the base and length of the XUSB FPCI registers.
>>>>>>>> + - ranges: Bus address mapping for the XUSB block.  Can be empty since the
>>>>>>>> +   mapping is 1:1.
>>>>>>>> + - #address-cells: Must be 2.
>>>>>>>> + - #size-cells: Must be 2.
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +Example:
>>>>>>>> +--------
>>>>>>>> +	usb at 0,70098000 {
>>>>>>>> +		compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb";
>>>>>>>> +		reg = <0x0 0x70098000 0x0 0x1000>;
>>>>>>>> +		ranges;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +		#address-cells = <2>;
>>>>>>>> +		#size-cells = <2>;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +		usb-host at 0,70090000 {
>>>>>>>> +			compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci";
>>>>>>>> +			...
>>>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +		mailbox {
>>>>>>>> +			compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox";
>>>>>>>> +			...
>>>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't appear to be a proper MFD.  I would have the USB and
>>>>>>> Mailbox devices probe seperately and use a phandle to point the USB
>>>>>>> device to its Mailbox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> usb at xyz {
>>>>>>> 	mboxes = <&xusb-mailbox, [chan]>;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am assuming that Andrew had laid it out like this to reflect the hw
>>>>>> structure. The mailbox and xhci controller are part of the xusb
>>>>>> sub-system and hence appear as child nodes. My understanding is that for
>>>>>> device-tree we want the device-tree structure to reflect the actual hw.
>>>>>> Is this not the case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the DT files should reflect h/w.  I have requested to see what
>>>>> the memory map looks like, so I might provide a more appropriate
>>>>> solution to accepting a pretty pointless MFD.
>>>>
>>>> For the xusb-host has memory from 0x7009000 - 0x7009ffff.
>>>>
>>>> Within this range, we have this fpci range which is defined as 0x7009800
>>>> - 0x70098fff. This range is being shared between the mailbox and xhci
>>>> drivers. Looking at the drivers, we have ...
>>>>
>>>> mailbox uses: 0x700980e0 - 0x700980f3 and 0x70098428 - 0x7009842b.
>>>> xhci uses:    0x70098000 - 0x700980cf and 0x70098800 - 0x70098803.
>>>>
>>>> So it is a bit messy as they overlap. However, we could have ...
>>>>
>>>> 	xusb_mbox: mailbox {
>>>> 		compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox";
>>>> 		reg = <0x0 0x700980e0 0x0 0x14>,
>>>> 		      <0x0 0x70098428 0x0 0x4>;
>>>> 		...
>>>> 	};
>>>> 	usb-host at 0,70090000 {
>>>> 		compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-xhci";
>>>> 		reg = <0x0 0x70090000 0x0 0x8000>,		      	
>>>> 		      <0x0 0x70098000 0x0 0x00d0>;
>>>> 		      <0x0 0x70098800 0x0 0x0004>;
>>>> 		      <0x0 0x70099000 0x0 0x1000>;
>>>> 		...
>>>> 	};
>>>>
>>>> I believe that Thierry and Stephen said that they wished to avoid
>>>> multiple devices sharing the same memory ranges, and so we would need to
>>>> divvy up the memory map as above. However, I am not sure if this is an
>>>> ok thing to do.
>>>> 	
>>>>> Two solutions spring to mind.  You can either call
>>>>> of_platform_populate() from the USB driver, as some already do:
>>>>>
>>>>>   drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c:
>>>>>     ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
>>>>>   drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-keystone.c:
>>>>>     error = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
>>>>>   drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c:
>>>>>     ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
>>>>>   drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c:
>>>>>     ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, qdwc->dev);
>>>>>   drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-st.c:
>>>>>     ret = of_platform_populate(node, NULL, NULL, dev);
>>>>>   drivers/usb/musb/musb_am335x.c:
>>>>>     ret = of_platform_populate(pdev->dev.of_node, NULL, NULL, &pdev->dev);
>>>>>
>>>>> Or use the "simple-mfd", which is currently in -next:
>>>>>
>>>>>   git show next/master:Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mfd.txt
>>>>
>>>> That is nice. Sounds like the "simple-bus" style of device but for an
>>>
>>> That's precisely what it does.  FYI: You 'can' use "simple-bus" and it
>>> will do the right thing, but as an MFD isn't really a bus, it was
>>> decided to create something a little more fitting.
>>>
>>>> mfd. Based upon the above, let me know if you think we could use the
>>>> "simple-mfd"?
>>>
>>> I do. :)
>>
>> Thanks Lee.
>>
>> Thierry, any objections on the above mem-mapping?
> 
> If you have the mailbox as the child device and use "simple-mfd", you
> don't need to slice up the memory do you?

Ok, I see what you are saying and I know that was what Andrew was doing
in this patch (just not with the "simple-mfd").

Cheers
Jon