[SPAM]Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] dt-bindings: clock: mediatek: update audsys documentation to adapt MFD device
sean.wang at mediatek.com
Wed Feb 28 09:58:12 PST 2018
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 09:13 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee at mediatek.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 08:10 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee at mediatek.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 12:29 -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:28 AM, Ryder Lee <ryder.lee at mediatek.com> wrote:
> >> >> > The MediaTek audio hardware block that exposes functionalities that are
> >> >> > handled by separate subsystems in the kernel. These functions are all
> >> >> > mapped somewhere at 0x112xxxxx, and there are some control bits are mixed
> >> >> > up with other functions within the same registers.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still don't think this change is necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just because a hardware block in DT maps to different subsystems in a
> >> >> particular OS doesn't mean you need a DT node for each OS subsystem.
> >> >> What we have subsystems for changes over time and DT shouldn't really
> >> >> be changing based on that. And DT is not the only way to instantiate
> >> >> drivers.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Apart right now we have the definition of both functions. The other
> >> > location is here:../sonud/mt2701-afe-pcm.txt. The ways I could come up
> >> > with are:
> >> There are several problems you need to fix. First,
> >> "mediatek,mt2701-audsys" is not documented. It is only used in the
> >> example. Second, bindings/arm/mediatek/mediatek,audsys.txt should move
> >> to bindings/sound/ if it is only audio related functions. Or perhaps
> >> just combine the 2 documents because it is all inconsistent currently.
> > Because the series crossed subsystems but didn't apply at the same time.
> >> The 2 documents are inconsistent as to what is the relationship of
> >> -audsys and -audio (afe) nodes. mt2701-afe-pcm.txt shows that the AFE
> >> is already a child of -audsys. The -audsys node should have
> >> #clock-cells. It should also not be a simple-mfd (another
> >> inconsistency in the binding) because it needs to probe first to
> >> provide clocks to child nodes, and then trigger probing the child
> >> nodes.
> > This is the 1st version I sent before, and the clock parts still under
> > review :( . But yes, the 2 inconsistent documents should be fixed -
> > this may depend on what we end up doing with the DT appearance.
> > IMHO, apart from overlapping regions with other functions I didn't see
> > any difference between audsys and other clock drivers (providers).
> > For the sake of uniformity, I make the 2 sub-devices parallel and move
> > "simple-mfd" to the top, and the sequences should actually be handled
> > through "probe deferral mechanism" - that would make this kind of
> > situations much easier to manage.
> If a child node has a dependency on the parent, probe deferral is not
> the correct solution. The parent should probe first and control
> probing of the chlidren. "simple-mfd" is intended for cases where
> there is no dependency on the parent node.
I think the device hierarchy for AUDSYS has to be depicted more
appropriately at first before we keep going to discuss the topic.
AUDSYS ---------- audio-controller
------- other controllers not being modeled yet
Currently, AUDSYS just works as a container containing all the devices
present within the range reserved for audio relevant function and even
partial registers and bits for these devices are mixing within some of
the range. And for clock controller, they're just all being used to
provide to the audio-controller or other functional devices under AUDSYS
Thus, deferral actually happens between siblings, rather than between
parent and child. For example, the probe deferral Ryder said is pointing
to that audio-controller needs to wait until all resources like clock
resources all in ready state.
I'm not fully sure MFD can be used properly to describe such kind of
device hierarchy, but it's really worth having a good way to describe
the composition of hardware blocks precisely in device tree and to ease
extension device support under AUDSYS for future.
There is also the same thing happened in MMSYS as  stated.
> > BTW, I could make the AFE driver be instantiated/probed from the clock
> > driver but this seems superfluous to me. Just make sure is this what
> > you want?
> I would think it would be the other way around. The AFE driver creates
> some clocks. Whether that's a separate driver or a single driver is a
> kernel issue that has nothing to do with the binding. IIRC, there's
> several examples in display controllers and camera interfaces where
> those drivers are also clock providers.
> Linux-mediatek mailing list
> Linux-mediatek at lists.infradead.org
More information about the linux-arm-kernel