[PATCH v8 14/16] ARM: dts: Introduce STM32F429 MCU

[Daniel Thompson]

On 14/05/15 17:34, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 2015-05-13 21:37 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>:
>> On Wednesday 13 May 2015 20:29:12 Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>> On 13/05/15 17:54, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>> 2015-05-13 18:37 GMT+02:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> We should definitely try to use the same compatible string for all of
>>>>> them, and make a binding that is easy to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't fully understood the requirements for the various parts that
>>>>> are involved here. My understanding so far was that the driver could
>>>>> use the index from the first cell and compute
>>>>>
>>>>>           void __iomem *reset_reg = rcc_base + 0x10 + 4 * index;
>>>>>           void __iomem *clock_reg = rcc_base + 0x30 + 4 * index;
>>>>
>>>> This calculation is true, but we have to take into account there is a
>>>> hole in the middle, between AHB3, and APB1 register:
>>>
>>> ... and equally importantly, only allows us to use hardware mappings for
>>> the gated clocks.
>>>
>>>> AHB1RSTR : offset = 0x10, index = 0
>>>> AHB2RSTR : offset = 0x14, index = 1
>>>> AHB3RSTR : offset = 0x18, index = 2
>>>> <HOLE >     : offset = 0x1c, index = 3
>>>> APB1RSTR : offset = 0x20, index = 4
>>>> APB2RSTR : offset = 0x24, index = 5
>>>>
>>>> So we have to carefully document this hole in the bindings, maybe by
>>>> listing indexes in the documentation?
>>>
>>> The register set has PLL, mux and dividers in the registers at 0x00,
>>> 0x04 and 0x08.
>>>
>>> Many of these clocks can be kept out of DT entirely because they are
>>> only there to feed other parts of the clock tree. However some of the
>>> dividers flow directly into cells that appear in device tree (such as
>>> the systick) and so we need to be able to reference them.
>>>
>>> In other words the proposed mapping cannot allow us to express the
>>> dividers properly (because the index would have to be negative):
>>>     void __iomem *clock_reg = rcc_base + 0x30 + 4 * index;
>>>
>>> Thus I'd favour using different indexes for reset and clock bindings,
>>> both using the naive mapping function:
>>>     void __iomem *reg =  rcc_base + 4 * index
>>>
>>> I think that its so much easier to check against the datasheet like
>>> that. Admittedly is we follow the block-of-4-bytes idiom we have to
>>> divide a hex number by four but thats not so hard and we end up with:
>>>
>>>                resets = <&rcc  8 0>;
>>>                clocks = <&rcc 16 0>;
>>>
>>> At the end of the day if we say we want to follow the datasheet, lets be
>>> do it in the most direct way properly.
>
> Daniel, I'm fine with your proposal.
> Doing that, we can have a single compatible string for stm32 family,
> even if the reset start offset change between two chips.
>
>>> PS
>>> I've written a custom lookup function to to get from the DT index to an
>>> offset into the struct clk *array I'm using. That means I don't care
>>> much about any big holes in the register space.
>>
>> How about using the first cell to indicate the type (pll, mux, div, gate)
>> and the second cell for the number (between 0 and 256)? That way, the
>> gates numbers would match the reset numbers, and your internal mapping
>> function would look a bit nicer.
>
> That's another option.
> In this case, for reset, we will only need one cell, right?

I think so. For the reset, this is essentially no change versus v7 
except for applying an offset of 0x10 when calculating the base address.

I won't get time to polish up the clk driver this weekend but I will try 
to write a documentation file proposing some clock bindings for you to 
look at.


Daniel.