Re: [PATCH 2/6] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices

* Pavel Machek [off-list ref] [140630 13:34]:

Hi!

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

The non-DT support has to be maintained for now to not break
OMAP3 legacy boot, and the legacy-style code will be cleaned
up once OMAP3 is also converted to DT-boot only.

quoted

@@ -587,24 +606,157 @@ static int omap_mbox_unregister(struct omap_mbox_device *mdev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap2_data = {
+	.num_users	= 4,
+	.num_fifos	= 6,
+	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1,
+};
+
+static const struct omap_mbox_device_data omap3_data = {
+	.num_users	= 2,
+	.num_fifos	= 2,
+	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE1,
+};
+
+static const struct omap_mbox_device_data am335x_data = {
+	.num_users	= 4,
+	.num_fifos	= 8,
+	.intr_type	= MBOX_INTR_CFG_TYPE2,
+};

So you use compatible strings to look up 3 integers. Would it be better to have
num_users/num_fifos/intr_type directly in the device tree? That should be cleaner
and more flexible...

If you do that, would it be possible to have share compatible string?

Yeah, I have actually encoded the .num_users and .num_fifos in DT in the
previous version [1] with shared compatible strings, but dropped those
properties in favour of adding minimal custom properties to DT based on
some offline IRC comments. I have no objections either way, but there is
really nothing to be gained from minimizing compatible strings.

Actually, I'd guess best solution would be to do both: have it encoded
in device tree _and_ have separate compatible string for each version
(in case there are other differences). You'd still get rid of the
table...

Do note that the .intr_type has to with the register layout rather than
a physical property (mainly to distinguish the pre-OMAP4 IP register
layout), so I am not convinced that belongs to DT. This is the reason
why I didn't represent it in DT even in the previous version. The
other

Aha, ok, then the intr_type should be derived from
compatible-string. Or rather... you should have three
compatible-strings for the three possibilities? (And then subtype,
currently unused, in case there are more hw differences).

The compatible string can and should be separate for each revision
unless they are the same exacat hardware revision.
 

quoted

two are HW IP design parameters, so in general putting them in DT isn't
completely a bad idea, but I will wait to see if there are any further
comments on this from Tony or DT maintainers before I make changes.

Ok, right... I'd vote for putting them into DT.

I would avoid adding custom DT properties where possible and let the
driver just initialize the right data based on the compatible flag.

That is as long as the amount of data built into the driver is minimal.

If we wanted to have some fifo property in DT, it should be Linux
generic property to avoid adding yet more custom driver specific
properties.

Regards,

Tony