[PATCH v4 6/7] dt-bindings: cache: r9a07g043f-l2-cache: Add DT binding documentation for L2 cache controller

[Conor Dooley]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 04:55:11PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/11/2022 13:25, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 25/11/2022 11:34, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>>>> +/* Device, Non-bufferable */
> >>>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_DEV_NON_BUF                       (0 << 2)
> >>>>> +/* Device, bufferable */
> >>>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_DEV_BUF                   (1 << 2)
> >>>>> +/* Memory, Non-cacheable, Non-bufferable */
> >>>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_MEM_NON_CACHE_NON_BUF     (2 << 2)
> >>>>> +/* Memory, Non-cacheable, Bufferable */
> >>>>> +#define AX45MP_PMACFG_MTYP_MEM_NON_CACHE_BUF         (3 << 2)
> >>>>
> >>>> What are all these? They don't look like flags, because 3 = 1 | 2...
> >>>> they don't look like constants, because we do not use shifts in
> >>>> constants. Are these some register values? I also do not see the header
> >>>> being used in the code, so why having a bindings header if it is not
> >>>> used (DTS is not usage...)?
> >>>>
> >>> These are register bit values for the MTYP[5:2] field. The DTS example
> >>> in the binding doc (above) uses these macros. I haven't included the
> >>> DTS/I patches with this patchset yet do think I should?
> >>
> >> Then why storing it as bindings? Bindings headers describe the interface
> >> implemented by drivers and used by DTS, but this is not implemented by
> >> drivers.
> > 
> > IIUC, some of these properties are non-discoverable attributes of the
> > cache controller. I see two things that could be done here that are
> > "better" than #defining bits:
> 
> I did not comment about properties. I comment about constants. Why
> register values/offsets/addresses are in this particular case suitable
> for binding headers?

I don't think we disagree here. I'm not in favour of the defines either
here. Perhaps I confused you by accidentally not adding Prabhakar to the
to field.

The dt needs to convey his particular cache implementation's bufferable
and/or coherent regions so I was suggesting alternatives for conveying
this information, without resorting to defines.

> > - add an RZ/Five specific compatible and use match data to set the
> >   attributes which is only possible if the pma-regions are set on a
> >   per SoC basis
> > - make pma-regions into a child node, in which andestech,non-cacheable
> >   andestech,non-bufferable etc are properties of the child node