Re: [PATCH RFC v6 1/6] dt-bindings: exynos-bus: Add documentation for interconnect properties
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>
Date: 2020-09-09 16:14:40
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-devicetree, linux-pm, linux-samsung-soc, lkml
Hi Georgi, On 09.09.2020 11:07, Georgi Djakov wrote:
On 8/28/20 17:49, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:quoted
On 30.07.2020 14:28, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:quoted
On 09.07.2020 23:04, Rob Herring wrote:quoted
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 06:37:19PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:quoted
Add documentation for new optional properties in the exynos bus nodes: samsung,interconnect-parent, #interconnect-cells, bus-width. These properties allow to specify the SoC interconnect structure which then allows the interconnect consumer devices to request specific bandwidth requirements. Signed-off-by: Artur Świgoń <a.swigon@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>quoted
quoted
quoted
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+Optional properties for interconnect functionality (QoS frequency constraints): +- samsung,interconnect-parent: phandle to the parent interconnect node; for + passive devices should point to same node as the exynos,parent-bus property.quoted
quoted
Adding vendor specific properties for a common binding defeats the point.Actually we could do without any new property if we used existing interconnect consumers binding to specify linking between the provider nodes. I think those exynos-bus nodes could well be considered both the interconnect providers and consumers. The example would then be something along the lines (yes, I know the bus node naming needs to be fixed): soc { bus_dmc: bus_dmc { compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus"; /* ... */ samsung,data-clock-ratio = <4>; #interconnect-cells = <0>; }; bus_leftbus: bus_leftbus { compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus"; /* ... */ interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>; #interconnect-cells = <0>; }; bus_display: bus_display { compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus"; /* ... */ interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_leftbus>;Hmm, bus_display being a consumer of itself is a bit odd? Did you mean: interconnects = <&bus_dmc &bus_leftbus>;
Might be, but we would need to swap the phandles so <source, destination> order is maintained, i.e. interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>; My intention here was to describe the 'bus_display -> bus_leftbus' part of data path 'bus_display -> bus_leftbus -> bus_dmc', bus_display is really a consumer of 'bus_leftbus -> bus_dmc' path. I'm not sure if it is allowed to specify only single phandle (and interconnect provider specifier) in the interconnect property, that would be needed for the bus_leftbus node to define bus_dmc as the interconnect destination port. There seems to be such a use case in arch/arm64/boot/ dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi.
quoted
#interconnect-cells = <0>; }; &mixer { compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-mixer"; interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_dmc>; /* ... */ }; }; What do you think, Georgi, Rob?I can't understand the above example with bus_display being it's own consumer. This seems strange to me. Could you please clarify it?
Otherwise the interconnect consumer DT bindings are already well established and i don't see anything preventing a node to be both consumer and provider. So this should be okay in general.
Thanks, below is an updated example according to your suggestions.
Does it look better now?
---------------------------8<------------------------------
soc {
bus_dmc: bus_dmc {
compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
/* ... */
samsung,data-clock-ratio = <4>;
#interconnect-cells = <0>;
};
bus_leftbus: bus_leftbus {
compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
/* ... */
interconnects = <&bus_dmc>;
#interconnect-cells = <0>;
};
bus_display: bus_display {
compatible = "samsung,exynos-bus";
/* ... */
interconnects = <&bus_leftbus &bus_dmc>;
#interconnect-cells = <0>;
};
&mixer {
compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-mixer";
interconnects = <&bus_display &bus_dmc>;
/* ... */
};
};
---------------------------8<------------------------------
--
Regards,
Sylwester
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel