[EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform driver
Alice Guo
alice.guo at nxp.com
Wed Nov 18 05:28:47 EST 2020
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> Sent: 2020年11月17日 0:14
> To: Alice Guo <alice.guo at nxp.com>
> Cc: robh+dt at kernel.org; shawnguo at kernel.org; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> dl-linux-imx <linux-imx at nxp.com>; Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>;
> devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform driver
>
> Caution: EXT Email
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 08:18:59AM +0000, Alice Guo wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> > > Sent: 2020年11月15日 0:41
> > > To: Alice Guo <alice.guo at nxp.com>
> > > Cc: robh+dt at kernel.org; shawnguo at kernel.org; s.hauer at pengutronix.de;
> > > dl-linux-imx <linux-imx at nxp.com>; Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>;
> > > devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> > > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] soc: imx8m: change to use platform
> > > driver
> > >
> > > Caution: EXT Email
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 07:04:09PM +0800, Alice Guo wrote:
> > > > Directly reading ocotp register depends on that bootloader enables
> > > > ocotp clk, which is not always effective, so change to use nvmem API.
> > > > Using nvmem API requires to support driver defer probe and thus
> > > > change soc-imx8m.c to use platform driver.
> > > >
> > > > The other reason is that directly reading ocotp register causes
> > > > kexec kernel hang because the 1st kernel running will disable
> > > > unused clks after kernel boots up, and then ocotp clk will be
> > > > disabled even if bootloader enables it. When kexec kernel, ocotp
> > > > clk needs to be enabled before reading ocotp registers, and nvmem
> > > > API with platform driver supported can accomplish this.
> > > >
> > > > Old .dts files can also work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alice Guo <alice.guo at nxp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8m.c | 89
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8m.c
> > > > b/drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8m.c index cc57a384d74d..af2c0dbe8291
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8m.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/imx/soc-imx8m.c
> > > > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
> > > >
> > > > #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > #include <linux/io.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/nvmem-consumer.h>
> > > > #include <linux/of_address.h>
> > > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > #include <linux/sys_soc.h>
> > > > @@ -29,7 +31,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > struct imx8_soc_data {
> > > > char *name;
> > > > - u32 (*soc_revision)(void);
> > > > + u32 (*soc_revision)(struct device *dev, int flag);
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static u64 soc_uid;
> > > > @@ -50,7 +52,7 @@ static u32 imx8mq_soc_revision_from_atf(void)
> > > > static inline u32 imx8mq_soc_revision_from_atf(void) { return 0;
> > > > }; #endif
> > > >
> > > > -static u32 __init imx8mq_soc_revision(void)
> > > > +static u32 __init imx8mq_soc_revision(struct device *dev, int
> > > > +flag)
> > > > {
> > > > struct device_node *np;
> > > > void __iomem *ocotp_base;
> > > > @@ -75,9 +77,17 @@ static u32 __init imx8mq_soc_revision(void)
> > > > rev = REV_B1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - soc_uid = readl_relaxed(ocotp_base + OCOTP_UID_HIGH);
> > > > - soc_uid <<= 32;
> > > > - soc_uid |= readl_relaxed(ocotp_base + OCOTP_UID_LOW);
> > > > + if (flag) {
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = nvmem_cell_read_u64(dev, "soc_unique_id",
> > > &soc_uid);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + soc_uid = readl_relaxed(ocotp_base +
> OCOTP_UID_HIGH);
> > > > + soc_uid <<= 32;
> > > > + soc_uid |= readl_relaxed(ocotp_base +
> OCOTP_UID_LOW);
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > iounmap(ocotp_base);
> > > > of_node_put(np);
> > > > @@ -107,7 +117,7 @@ static void __init imx8mm_soc_uid(void)
> > > > of_node_put(np);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > -static u32 __init imx8mm_soc_revision(void)
> > > > +static u32 __init imx8mm_soc_revision(struct device *dev, int
> > > > +flag)
> > > > {
> > > > struct device_node *np;
> > > > void __iomem *anatop_base;
> > > > @@ -125,7 +135,15 @@ static u32 __init imx8mm_soc_revision(void)
> > > > iounmap(anatop_base);
> > > > of_node_put(np);
> > > >
> > > > - imx8mm_soc_uid();
> > > > + if (flag) {
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = nvmem_cell_read_u64(dev, "soc_unique_id",
> > > &soc_uid);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + imx8mm_soc_uid();
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > return rev;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -158,12 +176,21 @@ static __maybe_unused const struct
> > > > of_device_id
> > > imx8_soc_match[] = {
> > > > { }
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > +static __maybe_unused const struct of_device_id imx8m_soc_match[]
> > > > += {
> > >
> > > Could this really be unused?
> >
> > [Alice Guo] I will delete "__maybe_unused".
> >
> > >
> > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-soc", .data = &imx8mq_soc_data, },
> > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mm-soc", .data = &imx8mm_soc_data, },
> > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mn-soc", .data = &imx8mn_soc_data, },
> > > > + { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mp-soc", .data = &imx8mp_soc_data, },
> > > > + { }
> > > > +};
> > > > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, imx8m_soc_match);
> > >
> > > You already have "imx8_soc_match" which covers imx8m and now you add
> > > "imx8m_soc_match" which also covers imx8m. Such naming is a pure
> > > confusion.
> > >
> >
> > [Alice Guo] device_initcall is executed earlier than
> > module_platform_driver. imx8_soc_init will judge whether there is
> > "fsl,imx8mX-soc" in DTS file. If there is "fsl,imx8mX-soc", it will exit
> device_initcall and use module_platform_driver. The purpose is to be
> compatible with the old DTS file which does not have "fsl,imx8mX-soc".
>
> I got it, but it's not what I was pointing out. Let me make it simpler:
>
> static const struct of_device_id imx8m_soc_match;
> static const struct of_device_id imx8_soc_match;
>
> This is pure confusion in naming.
>
> Based on this naming:
> 1. imx8m_soc_match means "matching only i.MX 8M SoCs", 2. imx8_soc_match
> means "match all of i.MX 8".
>
> Totally different than what you wrote here and what you intend....
>
> >
> > > > +
> > > > #define imx8_revision(soc_rev) \
> > > > soc_rev ? \
> > > > kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%d.%d", (soc_rev >> 4) & 0xf,
> > > > soc_rev &
> > > 0xf) : \
> > > > "unknown"
> > > >
> > > > -static int __init imx8_soc_init(void)
> > > > +static int imx8_soc_init_flag(struct platform_device *pdev, int
> > > > +flag)
> > > > {
> > > > struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
> > > > struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> > > > @@ -182,7 +209,10 @@ static int __init imx8_soc_init(void)
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > goto free_soc;
> > > >
> > > > - id = of_match_node(imx8_soc_match, of_root);
> > > > + if (flag)
> > > > + id = of_match_node(imx8m_soc_match,
> > > pdev->dev.of_node);
> > > > + else
> > > > + id = of_match_node(imx8_soc_match, of_root);
> > > > if (!id) {
> > > > ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > goto free_soc;
> > > > @@ -192,7 +222,13 @@ static int __init imx8_soc_init(void)
> > > > if (data) {
> > > > soc_dev_attr->soc_id = data->name;
> > > > if (data->soc_revision)
> > > > - soc_rev = data->soc_revision();
> > > > + soc_rev = data->soc_revision(&pdev->dev,
> > > > + flag);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (flag) {
> > > > + ret = soc_rev;
> > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > + goto free_soc;
> > > > + }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > soc_dev_attr->revision = imx8_revision(soc_rev); @@ -230,4
> > > > +266,37 @@ static int __init imx8_soc_init(void)
> > > > kfree(soc_dev_attr);
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > +
> > > > +static int __init imx8_soc_init(void) {
> > > > + int ret = 0, flag = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mm-soc") ||
> > > > + of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mn-soc") ||
> > > > + of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mp-soc") ||
> > > > + of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mq-soc"))
> > >
> > > Missing puts.
> > >
> > > Don't duplicate the compatibles, iterate over existing structure...
> > > or see comments below. Maybe you could simplify it with something
> > > like of_find_matching_node_and_match()... but check comments below.
> >
> > [Alice Guo] I check comments below.
> >
> > >
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = imx8_soc_init_flag(NULL, flag);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > device_initcall(imx8_soc_init);
> > >
> > > Where is the changelog? This was removed previously, now it stays...
> > >
> > > After more thoughs, it looks you have kept it for the purpose of
> > > supporting existing DTB, but it is not explained. Neither in the
> > > source code (which after applying this patch looks confusing) nor in commit
> message.
> > >
> > > In case of old DTB without fsl,imx8mm-soc-like compatibles, it would
> > > be better to still register a platform driver and create a device
> > > (of_platform_device_create())). However still this won't solve the
> > > problem of actually missing device node... so maybe this double
> > > entry point is acceptable, if properly explained.
> >
> > [Alice Guo] Sorry, I will add changelog next time. Actually I wrote "Old .dts files
> can also work." in the commit.
> >
> > device_initcall is executed earlier than module_platform_driver.
> > imx8_soc_init will judge whether there is "fsl,imx8mX-soc" in DTS file. If there
> is "fsl,imx8mX-soc", it will exit device_initcall and use module_platform_driver.
> Can I keep double entry point?
>
> If it is properly explained and there is no other way then yes, you could. Here, for
> old DTBs, I would prefer to use
> of_platform_device_create() and bind to "soc" node (child of root).
> This way you would always have device and exactly one entry point for the
> probe.
>
static struct platform_driver imx8_soc_init_driver = {
.probe = imx8_soc_init_probe,
.driver = {
.name = "soc at 0",
},
};
Can I use "soc at 0" to match this driver? It will not use of_platform_device_create(). It will use of_find_property() to determine whether
and nvmem-cells can be used. If there is no nvmem-cells, it will use the old way, which supports old DTBS. There is no need to add new
compatible.
Best regards,
Alice
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list