[PATCH 08/11] misc: rp1: RaspberryPi RP1 misc driver

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:31 AM Andrea della Porta
<andrea.porta at suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On 12:23 Fri 23 Aug     , Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > Hi Andrea,
> >
> > Am 23.08.24 um 11:44 schrieb Andrea della Porta:
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > >
> > > On 18:20 Wed 21 Aug     , Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > Hi Andrea,
> > > >
> > > > Am 20.08.24 um 16:36 schrieb Andrea della Porta:
> > > > > The RaspberryPi RP1 is ia PCI multi function device containing
> > > > > peripherals ranging from Ethernet to USB controller, I2C, SPI
> > > > > and others.
> > > > sorry, i cannot provide you a code review, but just some comments. multi
> > > > function device suggests "mfd" subsystem or at least "soc" . I won't
> > > > recommend misc driver here.
> > > It's true that RP1 can be called an MFD but the reason for not placing
> > > it in mfd subsystem are twofold:
> > >
> > > - these discussions are quite clear about this matter: please see [1]
> > >    and [2]
> > > - the current driver use no mfd API at all
> > >
> > > This RP1 driver is not currently addressing any aspect of ARM core in the
> > > SoC so I would say it should not stay in drivers/soc / either, as also
> > > condifirmed by [2] again and [3] (note that Microchip LAN966x is a very
> > > close fit to what we have here on RP1).
> > thanks i was aware of these discussions. A pointer to them or at least a
> > short statement in the cover letter would be great.
>
> Sure, consider it done.
>
> > >
> > > > > Implement a bare minimum driver to operate the RP1, leveraging
> > > > > actual OF based driver implementations for the on-borad peripherals
> > > > > by loading a devicetree overlay during driver probe.
> > > > Can you please explain why this should be a DT overlay? The RP1 is
> > > > assembled on the Raspberry Pi 5 PCB. DT overlays are typically for loose
> > > > connections like displays or HATs. I think a DTSI just for the RP1 would
> > > > fit better and is easier to read.
> > > The dtsi solution you proposed is the one adopted downstream. It has its
> > > benefits of course, but there's more.
> > > With the overlay approach we can achieve more generic and agnostic approach
> > > to managing this chipset, being that it is a PCI endpoint and could be
> > > possibly be reused in other hw implementations. I believe a similar
> > > reasoning could be applied to Bootlin's Microchip LAN966x patchset as
> > > well, and they also choose to approach the dtb overlay.
> > Could please add this point in the commit message. Doesn't introduce
>
> Ack.
>
> > (maintainence) issues in case U-Boot needs a RP1 driver, too?
>
> Good point. Right now u-boot does not support RP1 nor PCIe (which is a
> prerequisite for RP1 to work) on Rpi5 and I'm quite sure that it will be
> so in the near future. Of course I cannot guarantee this will be the case
> far away in time.
>
> Since u-boot is lacking support for RP1 we cannot really produce some test
> results to check the compatibility versus kernel dtb overlay but we can
> speculate a little bit about it. AFAIK u-boot would probably place the rp1
> node directly under its pcie at 12000 node in DT while the dtb overlay will use
> dynamically created PCI endpoint node (dev at 0) as parent for rp1 node.

u-boot could do that and it would not be following the 25+ year old
PCI bus bindings. Some things may be argued about as "Linux bindings",
but that isn't one of them.

Rob