[PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom,llcc

[Channa]

On 2018-02-01 02:44, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:55:12PM -0800, Channagoud Kadabi wrote:
>> Documentation for last level cache controller device tree bindings,
>> client bindings usage examples.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi at codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt      | 93 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 93 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..d433b0c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/qcom,llcc.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
>> +* LLCC (Last Level Cache Controller)
>> +
>> +Properties:
>> +- compatible:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value type: <string>
>> +	Definition: must be "qcom,llcc-core"
>> +
>> +- reg:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value Type: <prop-encoded-array>
>> +	Definition: must be addresses and sizes of the LLCC registers
>> +
>> +- llcc-bank-off:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value Type: <u32 array>
>> +	Definition: Offsets of llcc banks from llcc base address starting 
>> from
>> +		    LLCC bank0.
>> +
>> +- llcc-broadcast-off:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value Type: <u32>
>> +	Definition: Offset of broadcast register from LLCC bank0 address.
> 
> Please could we use "offset" rather than "off" for both of these? That
> way it's obvious these aren't properties for disabling some feature.
> 
> How variable are these offsets in practice? Is the memory map not 
> fixed?

The offsets depends on the number of LLCC HW blocks. These number of HW 
blocks vary from
chipset to chipset and new registers could be added that changes the 
offset.

> 
>> +
>> +- #cache-cells:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value Type: <u32>
>> +	Definition: Number of cache cells, must be 1
> 
> What's this for, and how is it used?

This is to obtain the phandle arguments from client devices. Related to 
cache-slices property.

> 
>> +
>> +- max-slices:
>> +	usage: required
>> +	Value Type: <u32>
>> +	Definition: Number of cache slices supported by hardware
>> +
>> +- status:
>> +	Usage: optional
>> +	Value type: <string>
>> +	Definition: Property to enable or disable the driver
> 
> This is a standard property, so I don't think it needs to be described
> here.

Sure, will remove it.

> 
>> +
>> +== llcc amon device ==
>> +
>> +Properties:
>> +-qcom,fg-cnt : The value of fine grained counter of activity monitor
>> +	        block.
> 
> Could you elaborate on this?

This is counter value programmed in the HW to detect live locks.
This parameter is tunable to avoid false positives.

> 
>> +
>> +compatible devices:
>> +		qcom,sdm845-llcc
> 
> Huh? The "qcom,sdm845-llcc" bindings wasn't described above, and it's
> not clear what this means.
> 
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +	qcom,system-cache at 1300000 {
>> +		compatible = "qcom,llcc-core", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
> 
> This looks very wrong. Why do you need syscon and simple-mfd?

LLCC HW block has 3 functionalities:
System cache core, ECC & AMON drivers for debugging.
All three drivers use the same register space for configuration, status 
etc.
In order to avoid remapping the same address region across multiple 
drivers,
I have implemented this driver as a syncon and simple-mfd.

> 
>> +		reg = <0x1300000 0x50000>;
>> +		reg-names = "llcc_base";
>> +
>> +		llcc: qcom,sdm845-llcc {
>> +			compatible = "qcom,sdm845-llcc";
> 
> Why is this a sub-node?
qcom,sdm845-llcc: This core driver as mentioned in the list above.
> 
> Why isn't the top-level node just "qcom,sdm845-llcc" ?
> 
>> +			#cache-cells = <1>;
>> +			max-slices = <32>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		qcom,llcc-ecc {
>> +			compatible = "qcom,llcc-ecc";
>> +		};

qcom,llcc-ecc: Driver #2 for ECC

>> +
>> +		qcom,llcc-amon {
>> +			compatible = "qcom,llcc-amon";
>> +			qcom,fg-cnt = <0x7>;
>> +		};
>> +

qcom,llcc-amon: Driver #3 for AMON

>> +	};
>> +
>> +== Client ==
>> +
>> +Properties:
>> +- cache-slice-names:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value type: <stringlist>
>> +	Definition: A set of names that identify the usecase names of a 
>> client that uses
>> +		    cache slice. These strings are used to look up the cache slice
>> +		    entries by name.
>> +
>> +- cache-slices:
>> +	Usage: required
>> +	Value type: <prop-encoded-array>
>> +	Definition: The tuple has phandle to llcc device as the first 
>> argument and the
>> +		    second argument is the usecase id of the client.
> 
> What is a "usecase id" ?

Usecase id for use case that wants to use system cache for eg: 
video-encode and video-decode

> 
> Is this meant to align with #cache-cells? It would be best to keep a
> common prefix (i.e. call that #cache-slice-cells).

Yes. Will update the name.

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.

-- 
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project