Re: a case for a common efuse API?
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Date: 2014-07-10 14:56:06
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-arm-msm, lkml
On 07/10/2014 05:26 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:32:03PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:quoted
On 07/09/14 01:35, Maxime Ripard wrote:quoted
Hi Stephen, On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 01:00:23PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:quoted
Hi, On MSM chips we have some efuses (called qfprom) where we store things like calibration data, speed bins, etc. We need to read out data from the efuses in various drivers like the cpufreq, thermal, etc. This essentially boils down to a bunch of readls on the efuse from a handful of different drivers. In devicetree this looks a little odd because these drivers end up having an extra reg property (or two) that points to a register in the efuse and some length, i.e you see this: thermal-sensor@34000 { compatible = "sensor"; reg = <0x34000 0x1000>, <0x10018 0xc>; reg-names = "sensor", "efuse_calib"; } I imagine in DT we want something more like this: efuse: efuse@10000 { compatible = "efuse"; reg = <0x10000 0x1000>; } thermal-sensor@34000 { compatible = "sensor"; reg = <0x34000 0x1000>; efuse = <&efuse 0x18>; }
Why don't use "syscon" framework for your needs? (mfd/syscon.c)
quoted
quoted
We have pretty much the same things in the Allwinner SoCs. We have an efuse directly mapped into memory, with a few informations like a MAC address, the SoC ID, the serial number, some RSA keys for the device, etc. The thing is, some boards expose these informations in an external EEPROM as well. I started working and went quite far to create an "eeprom" framework to handle these cases, with a dt representation similar to what you were exposing. https://github.com/mripard/linux/tree/eeprom-framework-at24 It was working quite well, I was about to send it, but was told that I should all be moved to MTD, and given up on it.Did anything ever get merged? Or the whole thing was dropped?Nope, I just never posted it. I could send it as an RFC though, and see what are the feedbacks.quoted
That branch looks like what I want, assuming we could get an agreement on the binding. It looks like pretty much every SoC has this, and there isn't any API or binding for it that I've seen. The only thing I see is Documentation/devicetree/bindings/eeprom.txt and that doesn't cover the client aspect at all. Taking a quick peek at the code, it might be better to change the read API to take a buffer and length, so that the caller doesn't need to free the data allocated by the eeprom layer. It also makes it symmetrical with the write API. We'd probably also need to make it work really early for SoC's like Tegra where we want to read the SoC revision early. So probably split off the device registration part to a later time to allow register() to be called early.I guess that the kind of things we could discuss after posting these patches, but yep, it looks reasonnable. I'll try to get things a bit cleaner, and post them in the next days.
Regards, -grygorii