[PATCH 3/3] dt: paz00: define nvec as child of i2c bus

[Andrey Danin]

On 31.03.2015 17:09, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 12:40 AM, Andrey Danin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> On 03.02.2015 0:20, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2015 12:20 AM, Andrey Danin wrote:
>>>> NVEC driver was reimplemented to use tegra i2c. Use common i2c bindings
>>>> for NVEC node.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvec/nvidia,nvec.txt
>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvec/nvidia,nvec.txt
>>>
>>> The changes to this file make more sense either as a standalone patch
>>> 1/4, or as part of the driver changes.
>>>
>>>> @@ -2,20 +2,5 @@ NVIDIA compliant embedded controller
>>>>
>>>>   Required properties:
>>>>   - compatible : should be "nvidia,nvec".
>>>> -- reg : the iomem of the i2c slave controller
>>>> -- interrupts : the interrupt line of the i2c slave controller
>>>> -- clock-frequency : the frequency of the i2c bus
>>>> -- gpios : the gpio used for ec request
>>>> -- slave-addr: the i2c address of the slave controller
>>>> -- clocks : Must contain an entry for each entry in clock-names.
>>>> -  See ../clocks/clock-bindings.txt for details.
>>>> -- clock-names : Must include the following entries:
>>>> -  Tegra20/Tegra30:
>>>> -  - div-clk
>>>> -  - fast-clk
>>>> -  Tegra114:
>>>> -  - div-clk
>>>> -- resets : Must contain an entry for each entry in reset-names.
>>>> -  See ../reset/reset.txt for details.
>>>> -- reset-names : Must include the following entries:
>>>> -  - i2c
>>>> +- request-gpios : the gpio used for ec request
>>>> +- reg: the i2c address of the slave controller
>>>
>>> This change breaks ABI.
>>>
>>> Instead of modifying the definition of the existing compatible value, I
>>> think you should introduce a new compatible value to describe the
>>> external NVEC chip.
>>
>> I changed compatible value to nvec-slave in v2.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-paz00.dts
>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20-paz00.dts
>>>
>>>> -    nvec at 7000c500 {
>>>> -        compatible = "nvidia,nvec";
>>>> -        reg = <0x7000c500 0x100>;
>>>> -        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 92 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>>> -        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> -        #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> +    i2c at 7000c500 {
>>>> +        status = "okay";
>>>>           clock-frequency = <80000>;
>>>> -        request-gpios = <&gpio TEGRA_GPIO(V, 2) GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>>>> -        slave-addr = <138>;
>>>> -        clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA20_CLK_I2C3>,
>>>> -                 <&tegra_car TEGRA20_CLK_PLL_P_OUT3>;
>>>> -        clock-names = "div-clk", "fast-clk";
>>>> -        resets = <&tegra_car 67>;
>>>> -        reset-names = "i2c";
>>>> +
>>>> +        nvec: nvec at 45 {
>>>
>>> This doesn't feel correct. There's nothing here to indicate that this
>>> child device is a slave that is implemented by the host SoC rather than
>>> something external attached to the I2C bus.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you can get away with this, since the driver for nvidia,nvec
>>> only calls I2C APIs suitable for internal slaves rather than external
>>> slaves? Even so though, I think the distinction needs to be clearly
>>> marked in the DT so that any generic code outside the NVEC driver that
>>> parses the DT can determine the difference.
>>>
>>> I would recommend the I2C controller having #address-cells=<2> with cell
>>> 0 being 0==master,1==slave, cell 1 being the I2C address. The I2C driver
>>> would need to support #address-cells=<1> for backwards-compatibility.
>>
>> Driver (nvec in this case) can decide what mode should it use according
>> to compatible value. Is it not enough ?
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> The I2C binding model is that each child of an I2C controller represents
> a device attached to the bus. which SW will communicate with using the
> I2C controller as master and the device as a slave. If there's no
> explicit representation of child-vs-slave in the DT, how does the I2C
> core know whether a particular node is intended to be accessed as a
> master or slave?

Device driver registers itself via slave API. Bus driver calls 
appropriate callback function when needed.
If device driver decides to access hardware via master API, then it can 
do it.

Am I missing something ?

>
> In other words, without an explicit "communicate with this device" or
> "implement this device as a slave" flag, how could DT contain:
>
> i2c-controller {
>      ...
>      master at 1a {
>          compatible = "foo,device";
>          reg = <0x1a 1>;
>      };
>      slave at 1a {
>          compatible = "foo,device-slave";
>          reg = <0x1a 1>;
>      };
> };
>
> where:
>
> - "foo,device" means: instantiate a driver to communicate with a device
> of this type.
>
> - "foo,device-slave" means: instantiate a driver to act as this I2C device.
>
> Sure it's possible for the drivers for those two nodes to simply use the
> I2C subsystem's master or slave APIs, but I suspect DT content would
> confuse the I2C core into thinking that two I2C devices with the same
> address had been represented in DT, and the I2C core would refuse to
> instantiate one of them. The solution here is for the reg value to
> encode a "master" vs. "slave" flag, so the I2C core can allow both a
> master and a slave for each address.

If there is one device, then it must be one node. If there is two 
devices then it looks incorrect to me to have two devices with the same 
address. Does I2C allow two devices with same address ?

I can imagine this:
- we have hardware with I2C device. This device can act as master or as 
slave
- we have device driver, that can work in one, other or both modes.

If we want to force master or slave mode, we can use flags (for combined 
mode we can use two nodes, but it looks weird).
If we want to let driver decide (preferred mode, arbitration, something 
else), we can use current rules.

>
> I'm pretty sure this is the nth time I've explained this.

Sorry. I don't understand why you still suggest to use flags. We can use 
existing infrastructure in this case. There is already similar case in 
arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790-lager.dts (see i2c1 and eeprom).

Do we *really* need this extra rules at this moment ?