Re: [RFC][PATCH] axi: add AXI bus driver

From: RafaÅ MiÅecki
Date: Tue Apr 12 2011 - 15:58:12 EST

2011/4/12 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi RafaÅ,
> On 04/12/2011 09:27 PM, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>> 2011/4/12 George Kashperko <george@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> 2011/4/12 George Kashperko <george@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:57:07AM +0200, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote:
>>>>>>> Cc: Michael BÃsch <mb@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: George Kashperko <george@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Cc: Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Andy Botting <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: linuxdriverproject <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> V2: Rename to axi
>>>>>>> Â Â Use DEFINE_PCI_DEVICE_TABLE in bridge
>>>>>>> Â Â Make use of pr_fmt and pr_*
>>>>>>> Â Â Store core class
>>>>>>> Â Â Rename bridge to not b43 specific
>>>>>>> Â Â Replace magic 0x1000 with BCMAI_CORE_SIZE
>>>>>>> Â Â Remove some old "ssb" names and defines
>>>>>>> Â Â Move BCMAI_ADDR_BASE def
>>>>>>> Â Â Add drvdata field
>>>>>>> V3: Fix reloading (kfree issue)
>>>>>>> Â Â Add 14e4:0x4331
>>>>>>> Â Â Fix non-initialized struct issue
>>>>>>> Â Â Drop useless inline functions wrappers for pci core drv
>>>>>>> Â Â Proper pr_* usage
>>>>>>> V3.1: Include forgotten changes (pr_* and include related)
>>>>>>> Â Â Explain why we dare to implement empty release function
>>>>>> I'm not sure we need this. If you have an IP Core which talks AXI and
>>>>>> you want to put it on a PCI bus, you will have a PCI Bus wrapper around
>>>>>> that IP Core, so you should go and let the kernel know about that. See
>>>>>> [1] for a core IP which talks AXI and [2] for a PCI bus glue layer.
>>>>>> Besides, if you introduce this bus layer, it'll be more difficult for
>>>>>> other licensees of the same core to re-use the same driver, since it's
>>>>>> now talking a PCI emulated on top of AXI. The same can be achieved with
>>>>>> the platform_bus which is more widely used, specially on ARM SoCs.
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>> Already noticed earlier that AXI isnt really good name for
>>>>> Broadcom-specific axi bus customization. As of tech docs available from
>>>>> arm, corelink AXI cores use own identification registers which feature
>>>>> different format and layout comparing to that we use for Broadcom cores.
>>>>> Maybe there is something "standartized" by the DMP specs? If so I'm
>>>>> curious if that DMP is obligatory for every axi bus ?
>>>>> Naming particular Broadcom's implementation just axi limits other
>>>>> licensees in reusing axi bus name/code or will require hacks/workarounds
>>>>> from them to fit Broadcom-like core scanning/identificating techniques.
>>>>> You use bus named AXI to group and manage Broadcom cores, while never
>>>>> even publish device records for native axi cores Broadcom use to talk to
>>>>> the interconnect through. Yet again, something like bcmb/bcmai looks
>>>>> like better name for this bus.
>>>> I don't know, I'm really tired of this. Earlier I was told to not use
>>>> anything like bcmai, because it is not Broadcom specific. Now it seems
>>>> (and I'm afraid I agree) there is quite a lot of Broadcom specific
>>>> stuff.
>>> Well, _if_ that "magic" EROM core layout is arm's "standard" for axi
>>> ports identification _and_ _if_ that EROM core is obligatory axi
>>> component then sure axi name is good one as soon as you consider
>>> registering master port (agent) cores with device subsystem as well.
>>> I have no clue here about how resolve those _if_'s, hopefully Broadcom
>>> guys can enlighten us on the subject.
>> Do you think that in my code only scanning is Broadcom specific? In
>> such a case we could keep it "axi", and just s/scan/bcmscan/. This is
>> only correct choice if the rest (addressing, core enabling, host
>> management) is AXI specific.
> The specification for the AMBA AXI Interface is available for free
> download from ARM if you register to their website and accept their license:
> I got it from there without any problems and the license does not look
> too bad for me, by having a quick look at it. I do not know if it will
> help you in any way or if it is completely unrelated.
> Why is the existing support for the amba bus not extended or used in any
> way for this? It exists for some time in drivers/amba/. There already
> was a discussion about this in , but
> with no result as I see.

I can see exactly nothing I could use from whatever driver/amba is.
What does it do from things we need? How do you imagine using that
with out (non)Broadcom buses?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at