Hi,

On 3/3/2016 12:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Thursday 03 March 2016 11:39:05 Joao Pinto wrote:

quoted

Hi Arnd,

On 3/2/2016 7:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 02 March 2016 16:46:47 Joao Pinto wrote:

quoted

On 2/19/2016 3:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 18 February 2016 17:20:27 Joao Pinto wrote:

Facts:

- Test Chip type are currently not detectable in runtime through the controller
- In the future the Test Chip version will be available in the controller
- Test Chip initialization is different for each type
- The IP Core version is 1.40a
- Test Chip version is 6.00
- Teh UFS version is 2.0

Ok.

quoted

Suggested driver architecture:

Platform setup:
 tc-dwc-g210-pltfrm --> tc-dwc-g210 --> ufshcd-dwc-pltfrm --> ufshcd-dwc --> ufs

The test chip platform driver could be called through 2 compatibility strings.
indicating the chip's version and bit type:
 "snps, g210-tc-6.00-20bit"
 "snps, g210-tc-6.00-40bit"

Yes, this sounds good. We can probably skip one of the middle layers,
but basically that is what I was looking for.

quoted

The device tree node would have additional info compatibility strings as the DWC
IP core version and UFS version:
 "snps, dwc-ufshcd-1.40a"
 "jedec, ufs-2.0"

PCI based setup:
 tc-dwc-g210-pci --> tc-dwc-g210 --> ufshcd-dwc-pci --> ufshcd-dwc --> ufs

The tc-dwc-g210 portion probably shouldn't depend on both
ufshcd-dwc-pltfrm and ufshcd-dwc-pci here, so how about leaving
those two out?


Then it becomes

   tc-dwc-g210-pci ---> tc-dwc-g210 --> ufshcd-dwc --> ufs
tc-dwc-g210-pltfrm --/

Ok, understood. It becomes simpler without the pltfm and pci "middle layer".

quoted

The test chip type would be configured by a parameter to be passed in the kernel
boot args: tc_type = 20 (20-bit) or tc_type = 40 (40-bit)

Right. With module_param() helper, this will be either a boot command
line option, or a module load option, depending on whether the driver
is built-on or not.

modprobe tc-dwc-g210-pci tc_type=20

command line: tc-dwc-g210-pci.tc_type=20
 

Right, that was the idea.

quoted

Having this in mind the KConfig would be:

"config SCSI_UFS_DWC_HOOKS
	bool

I think we can now remove the config option for the hooks as well.

quoted

config SCSI_UFS_DWC_PLAT
	tristate "DesignWare UFS controller platform glue driver"
	depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM
	select SCSI_UFS_DWC_HOOKS
	help
	  This selects the DesignWare UFS host controller platform glue driver.

	  Select this if you have a DesignWare UFS controller on Platform bus.
	  If unsure, say N.

config SCSI_UFS_DWC_PCI
	tristate "DesignWare UFS controller pci glue driver"
	depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PCI
	select SCSI_UFS_DWC_HOOKS
	help
	  This selects the DesignWare UFS host controller pci glue driver.

	  Select this if you have a DesignWare UFS controller on pci bus.
	  If unsure, say N.

config SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC
	bool "Support for the Synopsys Test Chip"
	depends on SCSI_UFS_DWC_HOOKS && (SCSI_UFSHCD_PCI || SCSI_UFS_DWC_PLAT)
	---help---
	  Synopsys Test Chip is a Phy for prototyping purposes.
	  This selects the support for the Synopsys Test Chip.

	  Select this if you have a Synopsys Test Chip.
	  If unsure, say N."

Agree with the approach?

This would work, but I think it's better to define the options in terms
of the top-level drivers, i.e. SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC_PCI and SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC_PLATFORM,
and then make the other options hidden and implicitly turned out by them.

config SCSI_UFS_DWC
	bool

config SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC_PLATFORM
 	tristate "DesignWare platform support using a G210 Test Chip"
 	depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PLATFORM
	select SCSI_UFS_DWC
 	---help---
 	  Synopsys Test Chip is a PHY for prototyping purposes.

 	  If unsure, say N."

config SCSI_UFS_DWC_TC_PCI
	tristate "DesignWare pci support using a G210 Test Chip"
	depends on SCSI_UFSHCD_PCI
	select SCSI_UFS_DWC
	---help---
	  Synopsys Test Chip is a PHY for prototyping purposes.

	  If unsure, say N."

I would keep SCSI_UFS_DWC to avoid building DWC specific source everytime.

Agree?

	Arnd

Joao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html