[PATCH 39/39] mtd: nand: denali_dt: add compatible strings for UniPhier SoC variants

[Marek Vasut]

On 12/05/2016 05:10 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> 
> 2016-12-05 12:44 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com>:
>> On 12/05/2016 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>> Hi Dinh,
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-12-04 7:08 GMT+09:00 Dinh Nguyen <dinh.linux at gmail.com>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2016 03:41 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2016-12-03 1:26 GMT+09:00 Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Plan A)
>>>>>>>>   "denali,socfpga-nand"           (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>>>>>>>>   "denali,uniphier-nand-v1"       (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>   "denali,uniphier-nand-v2"       (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Plan B)
>>>>>>>>   "altera,denali-nand"            (for Altera SOCFPGA variant)
>>>>>>>>   "socionext,denali-nand-v5a"     (for old Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>>>   "socionext,denali-nand-v5b"     (for new Socionext UniPhier family variant)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let the Altera folks worry about their stuff. At least for soft IP in
>>>>>>> FPGA, it's a bit of a special case. The old string can remain as bad
>>>>>>> as it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, I am not sure if this IP would fit in FPGA
>>>>>> (to use it along with NIOS-II?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (even if it happened, nothing of this IP would be customizable on users' side.
>>>>>> When buying the IP, SoC vendors submit a list of desired features.
>>>>>> Denali (now Cadence) generates the RTL according to the configuration sheet.
>>>>>> The function is fixed at this point. So, generic compatible would be
>>>>>> useless anyway.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we are talking about SOCFPGA,
>>>>>> SOCFPGA is not only FPGA. Rather "SOC" + "FPGA".
>>>>>> It consists of two parts:
>>>>>> [1] SOC part  (Cortex-A9 + various hard-wired peripherals such UART,
>>>>>> USB, SD, NAND, ...)
>>>>>> [2] FPGA part (User design logic)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Denali NAND controller is included in [1].
>>>>>> So, as far as we talk about the Denali on SOCFPGA,
>>>>>> it is as hard-wired as Intel, Socionext's ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's correct, the Denali NAND IP in altera socfpga is a hardware
>>>>> block. You can make it available to the fabric too, but by default
>>>>> it's used by the ARM part of the chip, so for this discussion, you
>>>>> can forget that the FPGA part exists altogether.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be in favor of plan B, since it seems to be the more often
>>>>> taken approach. A nice example is ci-hdrc:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ git grep compatible drivers/usb/chipidea/
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply would do "socionext,uniphier-v5b-nand" (and v5a).
>>>>>>> The fact that it is denali is part of the documentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me think about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Socionext bought two version of Denali IP,
>>>>>> and we are now re-using the newer one (v5b) for several SoCs.
>>>>>> Socionext has some more product lines other than Uniphier SoC family,
>>>>>> perhaps wider re-use might happen in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At first, I included "uniphier" in compatible, but I am still wondering
>>>>>> if such a specific string is good or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, comments from Altera engineers are appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, it's taken me a while to add comments. My altera email is very spotty now
>>>> that the Intel merge is completed. Please use dinguyen at kernel.org for any future
>>>> communications.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, everything that is said so far for the NAND controller on the
>>>> SoCFPGA is correct. I added the binding for the controller a while
>>>> back, but unfortunately, we never added the NAND interface to the
>>>> devkit, so we did not do much in terms of enabling it.
>>>>
>>>> I think the only SoCFPGA board I know that has the NAND interface active is
>>>> the TRCom board, but I have never seen that board.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any strong opinions on this matter, just as long as the
>>>> original binding
>>>> "denali,denali-nand-dt" is kept, and I think Rob was ok with keeping
>>>> that binding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am proposing to add "altera,denali-nand" for Altera.
>>> For what, do you need the generic compatible?
>>> This IP has no default for it to fallback to.
>>
>> IMO just for compatibility reasons with old DTs .
> 
> We generally contribute for
> a "working driver" (at least, should be functional to some extent)
> and "DT binding" bundled together.
> 
> However, Altera upstreamed the DT binding first
> (then some parts of the DT binding turned out wrong),
> but they did not upstream needed driver changes in the end.
> 
> So, the mainline driver has never worked on SOCFPGA, right?

Most likely it never worked, yes.

> Removing "denali,denali-nand-dt" is not breakage at all,
> so I do not owe anything to them, right?

I don't think I'm really qualified to answer this one. But, there is
drivers/mtd/nand/denali_dt.c , which handles this compatible string
and it's documented in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/denali-nand.txt, so doesn't that
make it part of the ABI ? I think we should
at least keep it as a fallback, that should be pretty harmless.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut